POPLA appeal rejected

nigelbb

Essingeviken wrote: »

Yes, I still have the parking ticket and I had also thought about the possibility of harassment.

I was very disappointed with POPLA because if you look at their track record, they have been reasonably fair in the adjudication between defendants and companies, but to me this is a clear cut case.

Some POPLA decisions like this are incomprehensible in their 'Computer says No!' attitude. Like not displaying a permit or Blue Badge because it's forgotten or fallen off the dashboard. These rules that the PPCs make up should be to aid enforcement of legitimate parking rules (overstays or who has right to use a particular parking bay) they shouldn't be an end in themselves. As infringing these made up rules is a cash cow for the PPCs they enforce them gleefully despite there being no conceivable legitimacy for them. Any decent company once they had been show that the motorist had bought a ticket would cancel heir 'fine' especially as their system is designed to entrap those who don't enter the vehicle registration correctly. There are car parking payment systems that link up the ANPR cameras with the ticket machine so as the motorist enters their registration they are prompted with the matching full registration of vehicles logged into the car park that have not yet bought a ticket.

WHy is it that pay on exit barriers are the norm for multi-storey car parks but it's pay & display otherwise?

The_Slithy_Tove

nigelbb wrote: »

There are car parking payment systems that link up the ANPR cameras with the ticket machine so as the motorist enters their registration they are prompted with the matching full registration of vehicles logged into the car park that have not yet bought a ticket.

Even the LIDL car parks do this when the chashier enters your registration at the till.

nigelbb wrote: »

WHy is it that pay on exit barriers are the norm for multi-storey car parks but it's pay & display otherwise?

Not all, though. Plenty of multi-story car parks which are P&D.

To answer the question, though, I suspect it costs more to have barrier control, especially as it means you must always have someone on duty (even if at the end of a comms link) to resolve issues when things go wrong at the barrier. Then, of course, there's the cynical argument that pay-on-exit is far too fair, means you pay for what you use, and leaves little scope for dishing out spurious "fines" or forcing people to overpay in order to avoid accidental overstays.

spacey2012

Only last week a judge in a county court case made it very clear he did not give two stuffs what POPLA had said or ruled on and threw the parking scammers case out of court with a short thrift.

nigelbb

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Not all, though. Plenty of multi-story car parks which are P&D.

We must frequent different car parks as I have only encountered one or two examples of multi-storey car parks that are not pay on exit. For a start AFAIK every single one in Norwich is pay on exit. Those in Basingstoke are pay on exit. One I used in Manchester the other week was pay on exit. I can recall one I used about six months ago in Harrow that was pay & display but that's it. It's unusual enough that I remember it as the exception.

Essingeviken

Well I am grateful for all the support and have established that the signage is clearly not compatible with the BPA's code of conduct. A letter to them will be in the post tomorrow.

Essingeviken

Please note that I have now published the full text of POPLA's statement on this case in what I believe was the correct location on the forum, for those who are interested in reading it.

# 386

I also include it here....

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 14:40, on July 10 2013, the Operator’s employee observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the Sennen Beach car park.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in branch of the card parking conditions by not displaying a valid ticket. The PCN states the reason being a ”Transferred ticket”. This means that the last three digits of the vehicle registration number printed on the pay and display ticket does not match the appellant’s vehicle registration details and hence the ticket was invalid.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. He states that he bought a ticket for 3 hours. He further states that his wife did not notice the instruction to complete the first three registration letters of the vehicle.

The Operator has submitted pictures which indicate the car parking terms and conditions. The signage states that a valid ticket must be displayed otherwise a vehicle will be issued with a parking charge notice. The ticket machine indicates that the last three characters of a vehicle should be keyed into the machine. It appears that the Appellant did state that his wife bought the ticket but has submitted that she did not notice the instruction to key in the first three registration letters of the vehicle. Hence it appears that, on this occasion, the Appellant did not fully abide by the car parking terms and conditions.

Although I note the Appellant’s submissions, when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.

After carefully considering the evidence before me, I find that, on this particular occasion, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.

I need not address any other issues.

Accordingly, I refuse the appeal.

Assessor

4consumerrights

Essingeviken wrote: »

Please note that I have now published the full text of POPLA's statement on this case in what I believe was the correct location on the forum, for those who are interested in reading it.

I have read the full POPLA rejection and this confirms that your entire appeal was based on mitigating circumstances and misunderstanding of imputting the full registration number. This does not win at POPLA and my earlier post gave a brief synopsis of a points to include.

However I note that the parking company allege that this was a transferred ticket and they confirm there was still time on this ticket. They further confirm they the last three digits matched your vehicle.

Therefore what are the odds of seeing another vehicle that day with identical last three numbers?? In my view it was pretty obvious this was a valid ticket. Also if the full registration number is required on the ticket, then the machine should have error messages and prompts for inputting incorrect or incomplete numbers. IMO this machine is therefore not industry compliant and not fit for purpose.

If this went to court, then the parking company would have to prove that this was not a transferred ticket.

I would now write to landowner of the car park in order to get this ticket rescinded and I would consider a counter claim for defamation and libel. You paid for more time than required and further demands can be construed as harassment.

Do come back if you recceive any solicitors letters or LBA?LBC or LBCC and read daisy's thread on this. Any court defence would include legalities around the contracts and rights of pursual and GPEOL.:)

Essingeviken

4consumerrights wrote: »

I have read the full POPLA rejection and this confirms that your entire appeal was based on mitigating circumstances and misunderstanding of imputting the full registration number. This does not win at POPLA and my earlier post gave a brief synopsis of a points to include.

However I note that the parking company allege that this was a transferred ticket and they confirm there was still time on this ticket. They further confirm they the last three digits matched your vehicle.

Therefore what are the odds of seeing another vehicle that day with identical last three numbers?? In my view it was pretty obvious this was a valid ticket. Also if the full registration number is required on the ticket, then the machine should have error messages and prompts for inputting incorrect or incomplete numbers. IMO this machine is therefore not industry compliant and not fit for purpose.

If this went to court, then the parking company would have to prove that this was not a transferred ticket.

I would now write to landowner of the car park in order to get this ticket rescinded and I would consider a counter claim for defamation and libel. You paid for more time than required and further demands can be construed as harassment.

Do come back if you recceive any solicitors letters or LBA?LBC or LBCC and read daisy's thread on this. Any court defence would include legalities around the contracts and rights of pursual and GPEOL.:)

No, your statement is not quite correct. They have not confirmed that the last three digits matched my vehicle. The reference on my ticket was a standard reference referring to Sennen beach. When you omit to enter any registration details because you haven't noticed the small print, the ticket prints out the ticket anyway and puts a standard reference on it. They KNEW that this was a standard reference but chose to IMPLY that it was another vehicle registration number. I looked around the car park and found other tickets with the same standard reference because their drivers had also missed the small print. I made all this quite clear in my information to POPLA.

If they wanted to play fair...which they obviously do not....the machine would, as you say, not be designed in this way, but would instead not print out the ticket and prompt you to enter a registration number....rather like when you complete a form online and forget some mandatory information.


When you say this...."If this went to court, then the parking company would have to prove that this was not a transferred ticket"....I presume that you mean that they would have to prove that is WAS a transferred ticket?

spacey2012

It matters not they can only claim a loss in a county court and they have lost nothing.
If I put a sign up saying anyone who can not hop back to the car after paying now owes £100 do you think a court would agree.
What about dyslexic or people who's language is not English.
Besides she put the REG in, the ex KGB skip sale parking machine malfunctioned

Essingeviken

spacey2012 wrote: »

It matters not they can only claim a loss in a county court and they have lost nothing.
If I put a sign up saying anyone who can not hop back to the car after paying now owes £100 do you think a court would agree.
What about dyslexic or people who's language is not English.
Besides she put the REG in, the ex KGB skip sale parking machine malfunctioned

"Besides she put the REG in, the ex KGB skip sale parking machine malfunctioned"

No she didn't. She didn't read the text but just put the money in and the machine spewed out a ticket anyway. I could say it malfunctioned....maybe it did by not prompting for the REG.


Of course it is a complete scam, I realise this but just don't understand why POPLA can't see this.