POPLA appeal rejected

4consumerrights

Essingeviken wrote: »

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 made all this quite clear in my information to POPLA.

If they wanted to play fair...which they obviously do not....the machine would 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.

Sorry my misunderstanding then as I have not personally been to this beach. The POPLA reply did not make this very clear and was contracting first three numbers and last three numbers.

You should still complain to the BPA as this machine should clearly state in legible clear writing specific instructions.

It sounds to me like entrapment then. My point regarding the ticket machine not prompting for registration numbers is still valid.

Did you read the newspaper links sent in post #17? Armtrac were also involved in wheel clamping before it was made illegal.:)

"If this went to the court then the parking company would have to proof this was not a transferred ticket" As the ticket was displayed on your vehicle the PPC would have to prove that the ticket was not transferred between any two parties.

spacey2012

The biggest mistake you made was taking what they said on board as your own words.
They said you did not put the reg in, you should have stuck to the opposite.

Essingeviken

4consumerrights wrote: »

Sorry my misunderstanding then as I have not personally been to this beach. The POPLA reply did not make this very clear and was contracting first three numbers and last three numbers.

You should still complain to the BPA as this machine should clearly state in legible clear writing specific instructions.

It sounds to me like entrapment then. My point regarding the ticket machine not prompting for registration numbers is still valid.

Did you read the newspaper links sent in post #17? Armtrac were also involved in wheel clamping before it was made illegal.:)

Yes, I have read all about their wheel clamping.
I sent the following letter to the BPA this morning....

Dear Mr Metcalf,

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING KBT CORNWALL LIMITED t/as ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES & MBC PARKING SERVICES

Location: Sennen Beach Car Park

Date: ?? ???? 2013

On ?? ???? 2013 we parked our car in the Sennen Beach Car Park, Cornwall buying a three-hour ticket at 12:38. This ticket would have expired at 15:38. At 14:40 we decided to leave the car park. Returning to the car, we met a woman who was in the process of issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the ticket was a ”transferred ticket”. When I asked her what was going on, she said that it was a requirement to enter the first three letters of the car registration number on the ticket. This had not been done and therefore the assumption was that the ticket had been transferred. A PCN has now been issued for £100.

According to your code of practice, your members are required to display appropriate signs ...entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage. In terms of the specific parking-terms signage, you require signs to be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. They are to be placed ”throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

The signs in this car park are attached for your reference.
Entrance sign(s). There are two of these, one above the other (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). The upper one indicates hourly rates for the car park; the lower one indicates some of the terms and conditions for parking. However, please note that this sign does not give any indication at all that a key requirement is that of entering the first three registration letters of your number plate. This is a key term and condition of parking, upon which the operator is now relying to demand my payment of a Parking Charge Notice of £100.
Other detailed terms and conditions sign (Appendix 3) The only reference to the requirement to enter your registration letters occurs in very small text on the parking machine itself. This sign clearly does not follow your requirements for detailed terms and conditions. In fact, I am not really sure that it can be considered to be a terms and conditions sign at all.

The effect of this signage on a customer is that a customer reads the large entrance signs to find out the charge required and then enters the necessary coinage in the machine. The machine itself could require the purchases to enter a registration number before printing out the ticket. However, this is not how the machine works. If the customer fails to enter any registration number, the ticket is printed regardless. In such a case, a default reference number indicating the location of Sennen Beach replaces the registration number (Appendix 4).

I formally request that you investigate this signage and report your findings to me. It is my opinion that the signage here should be changed as soon as possible to prevent other customers having the same problem as myself. If you are in agreement with the points in this letter, I request that you instruct your member to cancel the PCN that has been issued against me.

Yours sincerely,

Essingeviken

spacey2012 wrote: »

The biggest mistake you made was taking what they said on board as your own words.
They said you did not put the reg in, you should have stuck to the opposite.

You might be correct, but if I can't win what is quite obviously an attempt at fraud by being honest, then the country is going to the dogs even quicker than I thought.

4consumerrights

I would report the issue also to Cornwall Trading Standards as they can inspect the validity of the ticket machine and take further steps.

Essingeviken

4consumerrights wrote: »

I would report the issue also to Cornwall Trading Standards as they can inspect the validity of the ticket machine and take further steps.

What an excellent idea! That can be tomorrow's letter.

My feeling now is that it is at least as important to try and bring this scan to an end so that other people don't fall for it.

How do I find the landowner? I have tried land registary but can't see to indentify which property the car park is?

Essingeviken

I am impressed that I got a same day response from David Metcalf at the BPA that my letter will be forwarded to their investigations team who will then get back to me.

Coupon-mad

Essingeviken wrote: »

What an excellent idea! That can be tomorrow's letter.

My feeling now is that it is at least as important to try and bring this scan to an end so that other people don't fall for it.

How do I find the landowner? I have tried land registary but can't see to indentify which property the car park is?

Has the car park got a name? It will be on the fake PCN. Google it, always works unless it's a tiny car park.

Essingeviken

The more I think about it, the more I think that my case with POPLA was incorrectly adjudicated. So I have sent them the following letter....


The Chief Adjudicator

Parking on Private Land Appeals
PO Box 70748
London
EC1P 1SN

enquiries@popla.org.uk

Dear Sir/Madam

FORMALCOMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF *********, CASE REFERENCE **********

I require this case to be re-considered. The basis forthis request is as follows. According to your web site, you state thefollowing:

“The Assessor then considers the BPA Code of Practiceto the extent that it is relevant to these facts and finally applies anyrelevant law.”

This has not been done in this case.

1. Correct consideration of the BPA Code of practice has not been applied.

According to the BPA code of practice, members are required to display appropriate signs...entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage. In terms of the specificparking-terms signage, you require signs to be conspicuous and legible, andwritten in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read andunderstand. Signs showing detailedterms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. They are to beplaced ”throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read themat the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

The signs in this car park weredetailed in the photographic evidence provided by the parking company.
Entrance sign(s). There are two of these, one above the other (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). The upper oneindicates hourly rates for the car park; the lower one indicates some of the terms and conditions for parking. However, please note that this signdoes not give any indication at all that a key requirement is that of enteringthe first three registration letters of your number plate. This is a key termand condition of parking, upon which the operator is now relying to demand mypayment of a Parking Charge Notice of £100. These signs clearly exceed therequirement of 450mm x 450mm.

Other detailed terms and conditions sign The only reference to the requirement to enteryour registration letters occurs in very small text on the parking machine itself. This sign clearly does not follow requirements for detailed terms andconditions. It is quite clearly nowhere hear the size of 450mm x 450mm, as canbe seen in the photographic evidence and should have been obvious to ********(Assessor name). Neither were they placed throughout the site. Neither did Ihave a chance to read about this term “when parking or leaving my vehicle” butrather only when the contract was being made.

As a separate matter, I havelodged a formal complaint with the BPA, who have agreed to investigate this particularcar park.

2. The principle of applying “any relevant law” has not been correctly applied in this case.

In the case of Thornton v ShoeLane Parking Ltd, Lord Denning MR established that the more onerous the clause,the better notice of it needed to be given. In this case, the parking companythemselves admits that there are very few machines that manually require aregistration number to be entered. On this basis, it is clear that betternotice needs to be given of what is a key term for parking in this car park.

Please advise me of yourdecision. In the event of you not being prepared to reverse this decision, pleasesend a formal rejection letter to the address at the head of this letter inorder that I might pursue this matter further.

Essingeviken

Many thanks to those you who helped me with this ticket. I am still pursuing POPLA because of their absurb review of this. However, I had a good discussion with the landowner - a very reasonable sort of person - about the way their machines function. It transpires that you are indeed normally forced to enter your reg no before it prints a ticket, but in some rare cirumstances when you stand in a queue and someone else has woken the machine but not completed the transaction, you can end up without being asked for a reg no or...as in my case....with part of someone else's reg no.

Anyhow, having lost my POPLA case, Armtrac once again asked for payment. I wrote to them explaining these new findings, that I was happy to pursue it in court, and they have now written to me stating that as a gesture of goodwill :rotfl:the ticket is cancelled.