Advice please

GloSchw1

August 2015, parked in an NCP car park in city centre, apparently three pay machines in plot, two of which were occupied, so walked to the third unhindered by any fences, etc., purchased a ticket and left it on the dashboard.

Came back to vehicle well within time period and found a PCN on the windscreen, stating I had not displayed a valid ticket. Bewildered, tried calling NCP to clarify, to no avail.

Tried on many occasions to speak with NCP, all I got was automated menus asking for credit card details, etc.

After a couple of days, logged on to NCP’s PCN portal to view their evidence - four pictures of my vehicle with a ticket clearly showing a ticket on the dash - however, no close ups of the ticket itself, which I found odd.

Decided to appeal to POPLA, because I was convinced at this point that I was correct, and because NCP kept asking me for a copy of the ticket (why didn’t they have this already?).

Submitted the ticket to POPLA, and it transpires that the car park is split - two-thirds of it is run by NCP, the other third by the city council, but no dividing fence. Yes, I should have read the notices on the machines, but who does that when in a hurry, and no reason to think that the machine wasn’t for the car park I was actually in?

The POPLA ‘decision’ is below:

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments were detected.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he did display a valid pay and display parking ticket in his vehicle.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he did purchase a valid parking ticket, which he displayed in his vehicle. The appellant states when he returned to his vehicle, he saw that the ticket had rotated 180 degrees. The operator states that the appellant purchased a ticket from a different car park and that is what was displayed in his vehicle. The appellant has provided a copy of the parking ticket which he bought on the date of the contravention. The parking ticket in question was for a Council car park. In his comments to POPLA, the appellant acknowledges that there are two car parks. Whilst I note that the appellant made a payment for parking on the date of the contravention, I am satisfied that the parking ticket was purchased in a different car park to the one ran by the operator. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

So admittedly, an honest error was made. I accept that. Also made the error of trying to be too honest, it seems ... no wonder people turn to crime! :rotfl: Frustrated at the brick wall put up so that reason can prevail though. Still think the ‘fine’ is excessive, my biggest error was thinking that common sense would ultimately prevail with POPLA … no such luck. Very black and white decision. Harsh lesson learnt. Because I appealed, I apparently now have to pay £100 as punishment for daring to question them. Do I have any options now?

Many thanks

R

Fruitcake

GloSchw1 wrote: »

August 2015, parked in an NCP car park in city centre, apparently three pay machines in plot, two of which were occupied, so walked to the third unhindered by any fences, etc., purchased a ticket and left it on the dashboard.

Came back to vehicle well within time period and found a PCN on the windscreen, stating I had not displayed a valid ticket. Bewildered, tried calling NCP to clarify, to no avail.

Tried on many occasions to speak with NCP, all I got was automated menus asking for credit card details, etc.

After a couple of days, logged on to NCP’s PCN portal to view their evidence - four pictures of my vehicle with a ticket clearly showing a ticket on the dash - however, no close ups of the ticket itself, which I found odd.

Decided to appeal to POPLA, because I was convinced at this point that I was correct, and because NCP kept asking me for a copy of the ticket (why didn’t they have this already?).

Submitted the ticket to POPLA, and it transpires that the car park is split - two-thirds of it is run by NCP, the other third by the city council, but no dividing fence. Yes, I should have read the notices on the machines, but who does that when in a hurry, and no reason to think that the machine wasn’t for the car park I was actually in?

The POPLA ‘decision’ is below:

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments were detected.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he did display a valid pay and display parking ticket in his vehicle.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he did purchase a valid parking ticket, which he displayed in his vehicle. The appellant states when he returned to his vehicle, he saw that the ticket had rotated 180 degrees. The operator states that the appellant purchased a ticket from a different car park and that is what was displayed in his vehicle. The appellant has provided a copy of the parking ticket which he bought on the date of the contravention. The parking ticket in question was for a Council car park. In his comments to POPLA, the appellant acknowledges that there are two car parks. Whilst I note that the appellant made a payment for parking on the date of the contravention, I am satisfied that the parking ticket was purchased in a different car park to the one ran by the operator. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

So admittedly, an honest error was made. I accept that. Also made the error of trying to be too honest, it seems ... no wonder people turn to crime! :rotfl: Frustrated at the brick wall put up so that reason can prevail though. Still think the ‘fine’ is excessive, my biggest error was thinking that common sense would ultimately prevail with POPLA … no such luck. Very black and white decision. Harsh lesson learnt. Because I appealed, I apparently now have to pay £100 as punishment for daring to question them. Do I have any options now?

Many thanks

R

This is not true. PoPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. You do not have to pay if you do not want to, but court papers may follow.
With the correct advice and guidance you could win, but it is not guaranteed.


Had you come to this site first, all this could have been avoided with a two part forum assisted appeal. MSE has an almost perfect record of wins at PoPLA.


Food for thought if you get caught again.

GloSchw1

Yes, I’m aware of all that now, and feel sufficiently foolish ... I did look at other forums, but ultimately (and incorrectly) decided that I was correct because I had a ticket as proof - the issue was that I had no idea it was two different car parks, until pointed out by NCP but only AFTER I’d lodged my appeal. Sucks, huh?

If I decide to pay (that’s a big if), they have to accept my form of payment yes? I am in no mood to give them my credit card, bank or cheque details. If I state that I am willing to pay under my conditions, they can’t refuse, correct?

Fruitcake

GloSchw1 wrote: »

Yes, I’m aware of all that now, and feel sufficiently foolish ... I did look at other forums, but ultimately (and incorrectly) decided that I was correct because I had a ticket as proof - the issue was that I had no idea it was two different car parks, until pointed out by NCP but only AFTER I’d lodged my appeal. Sucks, huh?

If I decide to pay (that’s a big if), they have to accept my form of payment yes? I am in no mood to give them my credit card, bank or cheque details. If I state that I am willing to pay under my conditions, they can’t refuse, correct?

If you decide to pay these scammers I think they have to tell you what type of payment they will accept. You then have to decide what option you are going to use. Not everyone has a credit card so other payment options should be available.


I would suggest you first research how likely NCP are to take you to court. I think unfortunately the do go to court but have no idea of their success rate.


Alternatively you could research a really good defence and send it them saying you will vigorously defend their charge in court so suggest they cancel the ticket. That is a gamble and small claims court judges results of parking incidents is a bit of a lottery.


Or, wait and see what happens. If you get real court papers I believe you can still pay and settle before court begins. Personally I would wait and see but only you can decide what to do.

GloSchw1

Well, anything that costs them more while not incurring more costs to me sounds good.

False economy on their part, as I will never use an NCP car park again, no matter how inconvenient ... and I’ve used plenty before at airports, etc.

Coupon-mad

Seeing as NCP have no clue about court, ignore them is the advice now. Pointless paying a 3 figure sum just because of fear of small claims court (unheard of almost, for NCP) where the worst case scenario is a not dissimilar 3 figure sum if you lose (e.g. typically £150, not a fortune and no CCJ if you lost and paid then). So DO NOT feel there's any pressure to pay £100 now. Stay in ignore mode.

Come back if they break the habit of a lifetime with court papers.

DO NOT come back to this thread or any thread to actually post in panic about the inevitable debt collector letters, we've had them up to here and they are already done to death in post #4 of the NEWBIES thread.

Shame to see a wasted POPLA appeal. NCP are easy to beat but it is never about arguments about the P&D ticket (whether for the wrong car park or arguments about it slipping off the dash, nothing like that is relevant and would not have won).

GloSchw1

Excellent advice, thank you, and all taken on board.

Umkomaas

Was this car park in Milton Keynes?

GloSchw1

No, in Glos

Has happened elsewhere then, evidently

The_Deep

I agree with CM, ignore. If they take you to court you have loads ammunition with which to defend, GPEOL if significantly different from Beavis, signage, contract, standing, planning/advertising permissions, etc.

Surely it is a gamble. but the stakes are not high, and, if you win, it would cost the operator a lot more money than it would coat you if you were to lose. Also, NCP have had their noses rubbed in it recently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/11376805/MPs-fury-over-motorists-fined-for-putting-their-parking-receipts-in-the-wrong-place-on-the-dashboard.html

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/12/ncp-milton-keynes-car-park-penalty-charge-notice

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

I agree with CM, ignore. If they take you to court you have loads ammunition with which to defend, GPEOL if significantly different from Beavis, signage, contract, standing, planning/advertising permissions, etc.

Surely it is a gamble. but the stakes are not high, and, if you win, it would cost the operator a lot more money than it would coat you if you were to lose. Also, NCP have had their noses rubbed in it recently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/11376805/MPs-fury-over-motorists-fined-for-putting-their-parking-receipts-in-the-wrong-place-on-the-dashboard.html

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/12/ncp-milton-keynes-car-park-penalty-charge-notice

And even more spectacularly (and expensively)!

http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Mayhook-V-NCP%20Judgement%20transcript.pdf