Lost POPLA appeal - am I bang to rights?

Daffo1023

Hi, everyone. Firstly, great work on this forum, awesome to see such a community supporting others against the sheisters issuting these charges.

I have trawled through so many threads today, and haven't been able to find any advice that relates directly to my situation - apologies if I am wrong, though.

To summarise my situation, which relates, as with so many others, to Peel Centre, Stockport and Excel Parking:

1. Parked on Oct 1st, 2013 - entered vehicle reg, paid my money, shopped and left within the time limit.
2. Received a PCN letter from Excel stating that I entered the reg 'II', which I 100% refute - I even recall checking my car reg before typing it in!
3. Appeal to POPLA was rejected - frustratingly, I did not come across the appeal advice on this forum until it was too late (aaargh!!).
4. Am I now bang to rights? Do I have to pay, as the evidence when presented shows that I was actually 'contravening' the parking regulations, as Excel Parking suggest?

Not sure what to do - appreciate any advice or guidance you can offer in this case!

Cheers

The_Slithy_Tove

You don't pay. You ignore Excel and their debt collectors from now on.

ONLY if you receive actual court papers or a Letter Before Claim do you need to act. In the unlikely event it ever got to court, they would be hard pushed to claim any losses as you have demonstrably paid to park.

bod1467

Just posting to reinforce the above advice.

It was only ever a speculative invoice. And POPLA decisions are binding ONLY on the PPC, not on the motorist.

peter_the_piper

What did you use for a defence at popla?

Daffo1023

I presented video evidence of a later attempt to input 'II' into the machine, which it would not accept.
In my submission I argued that the time on my ticket (which did actually show a reg of 'II', but I didn't notice this at the time, and certainly didn't submit that number, hence my assertion that the machine is faulty) matches the time their ANPR recorded me entering the car park - therefore, it follows that the ticket that was issued does actually relate to me.

Admittedly, when writing it down now, it seems a little flimsy, but as I know I have done nothing wrong, I wrongly presumed commonsense would prevail as there's no benefit to me in putting a false reg in.

peter_the_piper

Unfortunately you relied on mitigation, popla say in their splurge that mitigation is not an appeal point, neither is common sense.

martmonk

In point 2 of your original post you say Excel stated you inputted II.

If that's the case then surely they have seen the photo of your actual reg, compared it to payments and realised that you entered (or as you say the machine mistakenly registered) II - therefore proving you paid.

Or have I missed something?

What I'm getting at is that would take it from mitigation to contractual in that Excel admit that the paid ticket relates to this vehicle, hence there can be no breach of contract as the fee for parking was paid.

Daffo1023

Precisely, MartMonk - I think this is the point I have been unsuccessfully fumbling with! Excel's evidence as part of the POPLA process included a screenshot of their database showing the list of reg numbers inputted around the time of my submissions, clearly pointing out that I inputted II when I inserted my money. By doing this, they connect my vehicle/reg with the incorrect reg number and in so doing, confirm that I did pay...

The point, I suppose, is whether I have breached the terms by not entering a valid reg number, as opposed to not paying at all?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

You lost because you used mitigation,end of really

bod1467

It doesn't matter - you STILL don't have to pay.

You may get a series of ever-strongly-worded Threatograms* (from Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith, Parking Collection Services, Small Claims Solicitors) ... these are all meaningless. (But you should file them away).

You only need to think about this again if they send you an LBA/LBCCC and/or actual court papers (from Northampton County Court).

* The threatograms will threaten court action, but will use words like may, suggest, recommend ... these are NOT evidence of actual court action pending, just words to try and scare you into paying.

Daffo1023

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

You lost because you used mitigation,end of really

Thanks!

bod1467 - thanks for the info. Is there a typical timescale for the escalation on this, and is it likely to be sped up/exacerbated by the fact I have been through POPLA already (ie, will Excel presume they'll be able to shake me down easier because they 'won' at POPLA?)