Incorrect vehicle registration logged in Ringo electronic payment

Lizm

I parked in an NCP car park, and paid electronically using Ringo. I have recently changed my vehicle, and even though I added the new registration number to the Ringo app, I didn't notice that the payment had defaulted to my old registration number. I appealed the tickets (2 days worth!), explaining that it was simply an admin error and enclosing the copy of my receipt (albeit it stated my old reg number not the car that was actually parked). I have received what looks like a standard response from NCP declining my appeal on the grounds of "unable to trace a payment matching the details of your vehicle for the date in question" - obviously my appeal explained why this would be the case due to my admin error, but that I had paid for my parking in full. From reading the threads I will now appeal through POPLA. A search under 'incorrect registration' didn't throw up any other threads with suggested guidance or prospects of success for my particular issue (ie I've paid the parking, but due to an admin error NCP are refusing to believe that I did) - I would obviously welcome any thoughts or being pointed in the direction of anything already posted that could help a successful appeal to POPLA. Thanks!

Lizm

I have now managed to locate a few more threads that have made sense (including finally finding one with similar issue - albeit only 1 digit wrong not the whole reg number!), and am understanding more about the fact that it isn't the actual circumstances that matter. I will use the standard templates provided on the Newbies sticky etc to POPLA. However if anyone does have any specific advice relating to a paragraph to use I'd welcome it. Thanks again!

Stroma

Place your popla wording on here once done , we can ensure it's a winning one for you

Coupon-mad

Lizm wrote: »

I have now managed to locate a few more threads that have made sense (including finally finding one with similar issue - albeit only 1 digit wrong not the whole reg number!), and am understanding more about the fact that it isn't the actual circumstances that matter. I will use the standard templates provided on the Newbies sticky etc to POPLA. However if anyone does have any specific advice relating to a paragraph to use I'd welcome it. Thanks again!

As part of your 'not a GPEOL' point #1 in your POPLA appeal include this as well:

The payment was made via RingGo by the driver; however it appears the wrong car registration was used in error. I have explained that to NCP and told them the other car registration was xxxx xxx, to enable them to locate the payment made. They would also have been able to simply check their records that no car with that registration was in fact in the car park. They have failed to bother to locate the payment so have failed to mitigate their loss which they will have realised in fact, does not exist. There was no initial loss at all but rather than check their records, they are hoping I will pay the punitive sum they have calculated which bears no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from a typical PCN issued in that car park.


DO NOT use the above as your basis of your appeal on its own!

I guess you've 'outed' yourself as the driver though? Never mind but not a mistake to make again as it loses you a slam dunk appeal point about 'no keeper liability in a train station car park'.

Lizm

Thanks to both of you for your responses & your offer to review my POPLA appeal letter. In my naivety, I didn't believe that NCP would reject my initial appeal given that they were not out of pocket, so yes unfortunately the wording of my initial appeal to NCP indicated that I was the driver. It was only when I received their rejection that I thought to investigate further! You live & learn!

Please see my first draft POPLA appeal letter below, I welcome any advice before sending it off! Blue text are bits that I didn't feel were appropriate to leave in given my circumstances.


Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
I would contest the parking charge as not being a GPEOL on the following points:

i. In their letters dated 12th August 2014 rejecting my initial appeals NCP state that they cannot trace a payment matching the details of the vehicle for the dates in question. The vehicle registration was entered incorrectly via Ringo. They have been advised of the registration that was used in error, in order to identify the payment. I would contend that in refusing check this vehicle registration (copy of receipt enclosed), NCP are not taking the requisite steps to prove that a loss has occurred and therefore, sufficient basis for the issue of this parking charge.

ii. The correct charge for the period in question, which I paid in full, was the day rate of £9.50. The parking contravention charge of £75 is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of NCP and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

iii. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.


The payment was made via RingGo by the driver; however it appears the wrong car registration was used in error. I have explained that to NCP and told them the other car registration was xxxx xxx, to enable them to locate the payment made. They would also have been able to simply check their records that no car with that registration was in fact in the car park. They have failed to bother to locate the payment so have failed to mitigate their loss which they will have realised in fact, does not exist. There was no initial loss at all but rather than check their records, they are hoping I will pay the punitive sum they have calculated which bears no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from a typical PCN issued in that car park.




[2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver - I have not included this as it isn’t really the case, the signage is quite good, and I’ve already outed myself as the driver]

2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
NCP has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put NCP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). NCP have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that NCP are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require NCP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

[3) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012 – deleted this as I don’t have NtK]
3) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park where the required full payment had been made. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charges are dismissed.


The registered Keeper

Coupon-mad

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver - I have not included this as it isn’t really the case, the signage is quite good, and I’ve already outed myself as the driver]

Nope! You ALWAYS have an unclear signage paragraph, not because they necessarily were terrible but because:

- you don't know if they were compliant do you
- it makes NCP have to show maps & photos and they may decide it's not worth it or they may send maps of the wrong car park (which you can spot in their evidence you'll be sent).

Also as you've outed yourself as the driver you don't have to refer to 'the driver' in the third person in your POPLA appeal so change it to 'I ' so it seems more genuine, in your case. The examples you see are written 'the driver' because we tell people not to appeal the way you did - but now you have, run with it as driver.

Don't remove whole paragraphs. In fact your first point needs more I think. Have a look at the 'CP Plus' version I wrote the other day (it's one of the examples in post#3 of the newbies thread 'How to win at POPLA'). It has quotes from the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and Senior Assessor and talks about why there is no GPEOL in much more depth, with case law too. Write your first point in a similar way - you can plagiarise the CP Plus version and just need to change the PPC's name to NCP.

As for the fact that you 'told NCP about the other car reg so they have failed to mitigate their loss' well in my view, that could be a separate point #2 and move the rest down.

Best to try to argue this as strongly as possible as you would expect NCP to show some sort of 'GPEOL' Jackanory version of a response, and you would expect them to be able to show some sort of site agreement from the train operator. So imagine that NCP are going to try to shoot down each point, seeing as you threw away the best one by saying who was driving (sorry). NCP are a very large firm and although we always beat them at POPLA, I don't expect them not to try to rebut what you say. So make their life difficult with a thorough appeal.

Lizm

Thanks for all your help, POPLA gone in, incorporating all your advice. Will let you know how I get on!

Lizm

Thanks to you both, I've just received my first email confirming that NCP have cancelled one of my tickets, so assume the other will follow shortly! I only submitted them late Tues night - really impressed with the speed of the first response.