Ticket in Fistral: machine took coin but didn't issue ticket

The_Deep

Appealing on the grounds that PE's equipment is faulty is NOT mitigation, it wins all the time in Mags court.

For the avoidance of doubt here are some difinitions of mitigation

:alleviate, reduce, diminish, lessen, weaken, lighten, attenuate, take the edge off, allay, ease, assuage, palliate, cushion, damp, deaden, dull, appease, soothe, relieve, help, soften, temper, still, quell, quieten, quiet, tone down, blunt, dilute, moderate, modify, abate, lull, pacify, placate, mollify, sweeten, tranquillize, remit, extenuate, excuse, commute


By asking for more money when money has been paid this becomes a matter for Trading Standards.

My advice would be to appeal on the single point of faulty equipment to Polpla, if is is rejected, so what. If PE were unwise enough to take you to court get Trading Standards on board. As has been said elsewhere, judges are becoming tired of these vexatious claims.

rdr

Surely, the driver paid therefore there is no loss to pe on the day. Any breach of the t&c caused by pe's failure to maintain the machine and by the machine's failure to fail safe.

The driver proactively informed pe that they had paid so pe could have mitigated their costs by not paying the DVLA for the keeper's details and sending notice to keeper. therefore any losses incured are due to pe's failures and the loss caused by the op is zero.

Add the generic not GPEOL and PE are totally sunk.

bod1467

The_Deep wrote: »

Appealing on the grounds that PE's equipment is faulty is NOT mitigation, it wins all the time in Mags court.

POPLA is not a magistrate's court, therefore (and I'm happy to be proven wrong) POPLA will likely treat this event as mitigation and a POPLA appeal on that basis will fail.

The_Deep

Yes, they are sunk, they are always sunk when GEOL is mentioned, and if we keep advising this, that is all adjudicators will rule on.

In this instance the OP paid for parking, he is therefore entitled to that parking. The fact that PE failed to provide a ticket is not his concern, it is theirs.

Immediately they were informed that their machine failed to issue a ticket they should have cancelled their invoice, they did not. Therefore they are attempting to obtain monies to which they are not entitled by breaching their contract with a customer. . They say that a ticket must be displayed, therefore thay must supply a ticket. This is not really a matter for POPLA but Trading Standards.

Had I been in the same position as the OP I would have refused to engage in Popla and pressed the matter with Trading Standards, who, I am sure, are well aware of the sharp practices employed by this company.

The_Deep

No bod, Popla is not a Magistrates' Court. But is required to base its conclusions on the same criteria, the law. If you give it five reasons why an appeal should, be upheld, one of which is loss, that it is the it will (usually) rule on. It will ignore the others, no matter how valid they are.

If you say that it breached its contract with the consumer, and nothing else, it will be forced to rule on that. If you only appeal point is that the other party failed., as PE did, in this instance, that is not mitigation.

Mitigation is when the ticket falls off the dashboard; breakdown, incapacity, faulty car park timing devices, cameras, barriers, ticket machines, and heavy traffic preventing you from exiting a car park are not.

bod1467

As has been said elsewhere ... YOU can take the militant stance if you wish, but don't try to fool others into thinking it will all be simple and a cut-n-dried case; it won't be.

Most people just want these things shot of - they don't want the angst and worry when it can be made to go away very easily. POPLA, for all its faults, is a way to make this happen.

Militant people are free to make their own choices.

The_Deep

don't try to fool others into thinking it will all be simple and a cut-n-dried case; it won't be.

Have you been to CC bod? I have, and it HAS been simple and cut and dried, on all four occasions.

bod1467

No I haven't, and neither have the vast majority of people who come here looking for help. So why take them down a path that does not have a 100% success rate (CC can always be a lottery), when they can be advised to take a path which does have a 100% success rate (when forum advice is followed)?

Were your 4 visits to CC in relation to Parking Charge Notices? Were any of them in relation to PCNs?

fviajero

Thanks for all your information, Ivor.


Do I really need to present pictures in my appeal? I have seen a won case I can use, at the same spot (Fistral), and very recent (January 2014), reported by user Siross under the thread "Parking Eye Fine - Fistral Beach". I think no pictures were added at all. The arguments used are:


1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
2. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
6. Unfair terms of contract
7. Without a contract
8. Non BPA compliant signage


I appreciate all your opinions. In this case, I will go for the secure appeal rather that the "just & real" argument of the machine falling to issue the ticket: mainly, because I don't have any proof of that, not even the message I sent to them before the Parking Charge notice, as I used their web page not ordinary email (because they don't provide email address).


One important question: once I have sent a soft apeal to PE assuming that I was the driver ("I parked in Fistral Beach and I ..."), I guess now I can't write in my POPLA appeal as if I refuse to identify the driver, right?

Thanks

ColliesCarer

fviajero wrote: »

....
One important question: once I have sent a soft apeal to PE assuming that I was the driver ("I parked in Fistral Beach and I ..."), I guess now I can't write in my POPLA appeal as if I refuse to identify the driver, right?

Thanks

Yes that's correct - therefore point 3 of the Siross appeal will not be relevant in your case.
Also I believe that appeal might not have been written for Fistral Beach but one nearby - Fistral Beach is mentioned in it as a beach nearby.
It will need careful editing to apply to you