Highview parking fine

Jackkebab

Guys,

I'm getting a little stressed now about it. I've read loads on the newbies page and I can't seem to find a template that sounds right for me situation, given that they now claim I didn't put a ticket on! Lies!! I feel like I shall have to pay and it just isn't right!
Any ideas would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Redx

just pick the closest match and adapt it

they are not "templates"

they are EXAMPLES of popla appeals, so find a similar one and adapt it so its correct for you (there are over a dozen linked by post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and everybody else seems to manage just fine)

copy and paste into notepad , adapt it, then post on here for critique , same as everyone else

but no personal info at this stage

Jackkebab

How about this then comrades?



Appeals Section
PO BOX 3573
Barnet
EN5 9QA

Monday, 15 September 2014

Parking Contravention Charge Notice Number: 0
Vehicle Reg:
Date of Issue: 19/08/2014
Company in question: Highview Parking Ltd
POPLA reference code is

On 22/08/2014I received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd requiring payment of a charge of £125.00 for the alleged parking contravention. Further more they claim this is the 3rd letter sent by them to me and have added an additional £40.00 which is the “charge” is so high; I cannot state any stronger that this is utter nonsense as I have not received any of the 2 alleged previous letters.
According to the extremely ambiguous letter of charge the alleged crime is because they “do not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit” and I must state emphatically that this is ridicules. Initially given the content of there letter I thought the allegation was that my vehicle had over stayed by 1 minute and I emailed them to seek clarification (copy of the emails are attached) and it was then that they responded with there allegation; but offering no further evidence to support the claim.
I am therefore of the opinion that Highview Parking Ltd cannot lawfully recover any of their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.
I would now like to appeal this charge notice with POPLA on the following grounds:

1. Sum demanded is not in any way representative of the financial losses suffered by the landowner

a. Punitive
The charge that Highview Parking Ltd are levying is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and therefore void (ie unenforceable). The charge of £125 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. The driver also considers the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee). Nor does it even equate to local council charges (which in any event are a completely different beast).

b. Unfair
The charge Highview Parking Ltd are levying is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

c. Unreasonable
The charge Highview Parking Ltd are levying 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.”

2. No right to charge motorists for overstaying
Planning consent is required for car parks and has conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put Highview Parking Ltd to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

2. Misleading and unclear signage

a. British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Version 2, March 2013, Para 18.2 states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use”.

The sign at the entrance of the car park was not compliant with the example in appendix B, neither did it state any Terms and Conditions or reference to where these were. Entrance into the car park can be completed by turning left from a very busy main road. Signage on the entrance was inadequate to make this clear.


3. Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice to Process


h. Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

The Notice to Keeper (Appendix does not comply with these requirements in the following manner:
1. Whilst the Notice to Keeper does specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge it does not specify the maximum additional costs that Highview Parking Ltd may seek to recover.

2. No landowner/occupier contract
there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore Highview Parking Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produces a copy of their contract with the landowner, which must be BPA Code of Practice compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that Highview Parking Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.

3. Insufficient interest in land
For the theoretical case that a contract could be deemed to have been established, and all the disputed terms to be validly incorporated, it is challenged that Highview Parking Ltd has sufficient interest in the land concerned to offer any contracts for parking in the first place. Highview Parking Ltd will have to provide a full copy of their contract with the landowner, or provide proof that they are the landowner, of the land in question; otherwise their capacity will be insufficient to even provide an offer for parking.

4. Trespass
If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this was the case, the driver would be liable to damages. Given that they did no damage to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when they parked or left and the parking spaces were ‘free’ to use, It is suggested that there was therefore no
loss at all.

5. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require Highview Parking Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Highview Parking Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Highview Parking Ltd to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of the above vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. Highview Parking Ltd appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from Highview Parking Ltd in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put Highview Parking Ltd to strict proof to the contrary.


I therefore submit this charge should be dismissed.

Kind regards

Redx

too much waffle in the opening paragraph, popla wont care about your opinions and there is no "crime" as its a civil matter , they definitely wont care about "what happened" on the day nor if you bought or displayed a ticket or not (it says so on their website)

cant see the magic words

NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

I do see statements about the losses, but if you bury the detail in the waffle how would an assessor find it ?

and on that note, no bullet points at all

ie:

1) Not a genuine pre estimate of loss

2) no contract formed

3) Poor signage

4) ANPR

etc

the above bullet points being a short example only

the Not a gpeol section would need all the usual words in it , like a PE appeal

then check over the rest of it too

so good try, but I for one dont like it

I also dont understand the address part at the beginning either , its certainly not the popla appeal address

ps:- adapting this recent HIGHVIEW popla appeal I found using the forum search box would seem a better idea to me, seeing as CM approved it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5060324

Redx

ok, that seems a lot better to me

now add a point 6) if necessary and mention the complaint they have and refute it by saying a copy of the ticket is enclosed (if you have proof of this) - otherwise (or as well as) allege that the proof is on their systems if they checked properly , so prove it or allege it

but with or without this, your appeal will succeed on the other points, probably not a gpeol so its likely that your personal feelings on this will never be justified nor receive an apology - thats the way its is , but remember, your rant to popla didnt help your case, your new calm and cool approach will

so either add it or not, then submit to popla, bearing in mind you may need to refute their evidence pack a week or two before the decision date

the rebuttals have already been mentioned on here so do a search for them so you know what to say in the future

Coupon-mad

I have no idea why that old template 'unreasonable...unfair...trespass' is still floating about after around 18 months. It's positively antique.
Why not just adapt the 'ParkingEye pay and display car park' version of a POPLA appeal, changing it to read 'Highview' and weeding out stuff like the 'fishing licence' or 'in the dark' as they aren't relevant to you? Yours was a P&D car park, so use a P&D car park version of a POPLA appeal. Isn't that PE version for a P&D car park, in the newbies link 'How to win at POPLA', obviously the nearest one, and it includes the fact that the contravention isn't made clear so the NTK is flawed.

Jackkebab

Morning all,

I have made another adjustment to the appeal letter and I have taken REDX's advice but added an additional paragraph to section 4. I would welcome some final views and critique before I submit it later today!!

Thanks for all your help!!


OPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by Highview Parking.

My appeal is based on the following grounds.

1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi.

3. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.

4. Lack of photographic evidence and unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.

5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


To expand on these points:!

1.!No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.!

I require Highview Parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Highview Parking cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. For the record, the alleged contravention was that they “do not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made to cover the full duration of the visit”. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that! ‘a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

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. 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. There is no genuine loss being pursued.

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:!

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''


2.!Contract with landowner - no locus standi
Highview Parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Highview Parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Highview Parking to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.!

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

Therefore, I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Highview Parking and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013

In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'

I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. Highview Parking cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.!


3.!Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that Highview Parking is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Highview Parking has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be Highview Parking or their client, their debt collecting agent, or the landowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is.....”.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not just indicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but “identified”. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, Highview Parking has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and so it is a nullity. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is 'fundamental to establishing liability' for a parking charge, stating: 'where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'!


4.!Lack of photographic evidence and unreliable, unsynchronised, non-compliant ANPR system.
I call into question the reliability and compliance of the ANPR system because Highview Parking are relying on two pictures of a vehicle. In these two images, the vehicle registration mark is illegible. Attached below are computerised displays of my vehicle's registration mark, presumably taken by the ANPR system. As the photographic images have illegible vehicle registration marks and Highview Parking is relying on their ANPR system to raise this charge, I require the Operator to present records which prove:

- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.

- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.!

The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was!'fundamentally flawed'!as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.!

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact! Time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately, and this is in addition to the missing time/location evidence from the second photo. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put Highview Parking to strict proof to the contrary.!

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)!
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''!

At this location, there are merely a few small cameras mounted on poles or walls. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. The signage only states “This car park is controlled by ANPR cameras and/or Warden patrols”. No mention is made of what exactly an “ANPR camera” is or what the data will be used for. To a lay person, this is extremely confusing and makes no sense. This means the system does!not!operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here.!

Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.!

In addition to the above the actual allegation itself is yet to be substantiated with any evidence whatsoever; I refute the nonsense allegation and demand that Highview back up the ambiguous allegation with their CCTV footage showing the driver at the ticket machine and the data entries for the ticket machine for that time period. It is my view that either this is a serious bogus claim or the diver entered the incorrect registration details; but all of this is within Highview’s ability to prove or disprove.

5.!Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

As stated in the BPA code 18.1 “You must use signs to make it easy...to find out what your terms and conditions are.”BPA code 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”

BPA code 18.3 states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”!

This concept of clarity is also stated in case law. When giving judgment in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeals, Lord Denning stated that this was not “drawn to his attention in the most explicit way. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.”

Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Jackkebab

Appeal submitted; I will let you know if I win or not! Fingers crossed!!

DOUG

Hi,

Sorry to jump on this thread but I too have received 2 charge notices for parking in our office carpark by Highview Parking. The normal procedure is the car registration number is e-mailed to the admin office of the serviced office block.

The first notice I got my registration number was definitely e-mailed to the admin office but they failed to act on this. I have e-mail proof of this. I passed this onto Highview who said that they had issued it correctly but would be willing to accept £20 to cover their admin costs. I refused to pay this and keep getting reminders through the post with higher costs.

The second one I do not have e-mail proof that the admin office had been notified of my reg number. Out admin girl has left the company and I cannot find any evidence of an e-mail being sent. I acted dumb and told them that my reg was added but they have rejected this and again, keep sending me reminders.

Not sure where to go now...?

Marktheshark

DOUG wrote: »

Hi,

Sorry to jump on this thread but I too have received 2 charge notices for parking in our office carpark by Highview Parking. The normal procedure is the car registration number is e-mailed to the admin office of the serviced office block.

The first notice I got my registration number was definitely e-mailed to the admin office but they failed to act on this. I have e-mail proof of this. I passed this onto Highview who said that they had issued it correctly but would be willing to accept £20 to cover their admin costs. I refused to pay this and keep getting reminders through the post with higher costs.

The second one I do not have e-mail proof that the admin office had been notified of my reg number. Out admin girl has left the company and I cannot find any evidence of an e-mail being sent. I acted dumb and told them that my reg was added but they have rejected this and again, keep sending me reminders.

Not sure where to go now...?

Go start a new thread would be the best start, one problem, one thread