Armtrac help please

kayaker_2

I put 3.50 into a machine and it only registered 3.40 and i didn't check the ticket and no money was rejected. It says on the ticket that 3.40 was received and so it issued a 4 hour ticket for 2.50 and so when i returned 6 hours later i had a ticket. I appealed that 100 fine for 10 pence short was not sensible and that i wanted to see that the machine had registered the correct money for the day as i used 3 pound coins and a 50 pence piece so not sure how it registered 10 pence short. They refused and so i went through popla which i won as armtrac sent in the wrong evidence. 2 weeks later i received a letter from popla saying they had reconsidered and now wanted to run the appeal again with the evidence from armtrac. They did and now they say i failed and have to pay. If i had not submitted evidence in time there is no way they would have allowed a re trial. Any ideas where i stand on this one.

bod1467

Woah woah woah! POPLA upheld your appeal and then decided to reassess the appeal again? Something doesn't smell right here.

PS - a POPLA appeal is only binding on the PPC, not the motorist. So regardless of anything, this does NOT mean you have to pay. The PPC would need to chase you through the courts to make you pay.

For info - between 01/10/2012 and 30/09/2013 Armtrac did court 5 times (under the guise of KBT CORNWALL LTD T/A ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES).

HO87

@kayaker

Did you use one of the appeal models from here? If so could you let us have sight of it?

Secondly, on Armtrac's relisted appeal were you supplied with copies of their case by POPLA?

kayaker_2

Thanks, I didnt start using the forum untill a long way down the process. I have copied the final reply from POPLA below.

I have replied to POPLA asking why in my case their initial decision was not final and why they allowed a retrial. I have now received a letter from Armtrac saying a court date will be set on the 4th of April ie today!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Ticket expired’. The Operator submits that a parking
charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
displayed, or that, at the time of issue of the parking charge notice, the ticket
displayed on his windscreen had expired.
It is the Appellant’s case that he entered £3.50 for a longer ticket, but that
one of his coins was not registered by the machine which printed a ticket for
too short a time.
The Operator does not dispute that the Appellant initially purchased a valid
ticket; however, the terms of parking are clear that a valid ticket must be
displayed at all times. The Appellant does not dispute that the ticket
displayed had expired at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.
Although I sympathise, I am not able to take into account mitigating
circumstances. 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. It is his or her responsibility to check
the expiry time printed, and return to the vehicle within the time purchased.
I must find that, by failing to display a valid ticket, the Appellant became
liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking
displayed.
Accordingly, I refuse the appeal.

Guys_Dad

The PPC "industry" doesn't work on anyone normal's concept of fairness. You need to understand that they receive virtually no income except from miscreants and if they let you off, they lose £100 or £60.

Technically, they are correct - if you buy into the whole concept. I will venture that your argument will lose in court too.

So, you need a decent case based on other points such as their lack of contract, no genuine loss (except 10p). In fact, it is very simple to show that their loss is 10p from the information provided.

So, you have gone as far as you can at present until you get a letter from Northampton Court.

But it is worrying that you have been informed by POPLA that you won and then they changed their mind. I wonder if they have any evidence of having overturned any cases in the opposite direction???

Can you post what they original wrote and then their letter saying they were going to rehear the case?

kayaker_2

Here is the original letter from POPLA where they decided in my favor.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Appellant’s case that the Operator’s machine printed the wrong
ticket.
The Operator evidence which I have before me is entitled the correct
verification code of 3262533004; however, the evidence produced appears
to relate to a different parking charge notice. The vehicle registration
number, parking charge notice number and Appellant details do not match
this appeal.
It seems that the Operator has produced evidence for the wrong case;
consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that he paid for parking correctly.
Accordingly, I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Coupon-mad

You should complain to the Lead Adjudicator. If you had send the wrong appeal you would not have been given a second chance (in fact you did send the wrong appeal!).

And...sorry say it but...be ready for court and start researching what makes a decent small claims defence v a PPC, more thoroughly than any research done for that wasted POPLA appeal. It's a crying shame you didn't come here earlier as we win all POPLA appeals. Please read the NEWBIES thread section on small claims, where the links tell you what to expect and how to defend.