Underpaid unknowingly

Castle

Unicorn51 wrote: »

Also there is a Data Protection issue. From the ticket machine log, they are still retaining VRN of vehicles that used the car park at the same time as you.

Any personal data should be deleted as soon as it is no longer needed.

The ticket machine log could be classed as an accounting record which they would have to keep for 6 years.

Coupon-mad

Furthermore, and this is crucial I feel, the very next transaction number 80382 within less than 2 minutes at the same machine number 103 is with an overpayment of 10p! This is compelling evidence that the 10p that we had applied somehow didn't register before the ticket was issued but then was there (maybe dislodged, maybe an electronic fault) when the next person inserted their £3.30 into the slot - making that payment then £3.40.

Nicely spotted! :T This is probably what happens every time. And they know it.

3. Pedantic point, but the witness statement refers to the PCN being issued on 10th March which is not the case ('date of notice' is 16th March). This deems the statement to be incorrect or false in my opinion.

Not pedantic. Equally crucial.

Assuming that witness statement does not otherwise indentify you or your vehicle, then you can truthfully point out to POPLA that the witness statement is one which relates to another parking event on another day, 10th March, not that alleged to involve your vehicle at all. Bearing in mind that Highview issue PCNs every day of the week, a witness statement signed as relating to an otherwise unspecified parking event dated 10th March CANNOT be held to be acceptable evidence relating to a parking event dated 16th March.

BaBa

Having submitted my comments to POPLA on Friday, the appeal has very quickly been reviewed and I received the following disappointing decision today, which frustratingly appears to ignore the arguments that I made to support my appeal:

The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant feels the signage displayed on site is unclear. The appellant does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant states the payment machine on site was faulty.

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. However, after reviewing the Notice to Keeper, it is clear that the operator is not seeking keeper liability and therefore, PoFA 2012 does not apply. In this case, the operator is seeking the driver’s liability. The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 18:29 and exiting the site at 22:14. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “All vehicles must display a valid staff/visitor permit or purchase a ticket from the pay and display machine. … Payment can be topped up before leaving”. The operator has also provided a site map, highlighting the amount and location of all signs displayed within the car park. Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with yourself. … In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to know what your terms and conditions are.” After reviewing the evidence of the signs displayed within the car park, I am satisfied that the signs comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of three hours and 45 minutes. The operator has confirmed in its case file that the appellant’s vehicle was only permitted to park on site until 20:30 on the date in question. As the appellant exceeded that time, he was issued with a PCN. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing PCNs. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided POPLA with a signed witness statement between itself and the landowner. Witness statements are referenced further in the BPA Code of Practice, where it states that they were introduced as “an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within a POPLA evidence pack and as such these statements should be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent”. After reviewing the witness statement, I am satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments that the payment machine was faulty. In response to this, the operator has provided POPLA with a system print out of all payments made on the date of the contravention by other motorists. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

fisherjim

Another farcicle load of hogwash or is it me?
No keeper liability claimed by the Muppet PPC, even refered to by POOPLA so they assume the appeal from the keeper is automatically admitting to be the driver.

BaBa

fisherjim wrote: »

Another farcicle load of hogwash or is it me?
No keeper liability claimed by the Muppet PPC, even refered to by POOPLA so they assume the appeal from the keeper is automatically admitting to be the driver.

Yes, the opening statement confuses me by stating both that the operator doesn't seek to establish keeper liability so POFA does not apply but also that the assessor is not satisfied that the driver identity has been established.

Umkomaas

Another chronic, appalling POPLA decision. Can you give us the name of the Assessor please?

This needs an urgent complaint to John [STRIKE]McGrath[/STRIKE] Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator at POPLA. The decision's rationale is utterly flawed and makes absolutely no sense. The PPC is not pursuing the keeper under PoFA provisions, therefore can only pursue the driver. The appeal is being made by the keeper (not the driver) yet POPLA have rejected the keeper's appeal, making them out to be 'liable', even though the PPC is not pursuing the keeper.

Complete nonsense! You must follow this through in order to try to head off any further action by the PPC.

You also need to write to the PPC to say, as is your right, that you are rejecting POPLA's decision as it is fundamentally flawed and as such you will not be making any payment.

Coupon-mad

I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. However, after reviewing the Notice to Keeper, it is clear that the operator is not seeking keeper liability and therefore, PoFA 2012 does not apply. In this case, the operator is seeking the driver’s liability

I am sorry but this has GOT to be stamped out! POPLA do not understand the law which is not just embarrassing, it is a scandal because they are costing consumers money.

You need to complain to 'complaints@popla.org.uk' and you can find other threads about similar issues by searching this forum for that email address as your only search term. I thought the Lead adjudictor's name was John Gallagher?

Then when POPLA reply with some drivel still not understanding keeper liability, you need to send a complaint to Nicola Mullaney at ISPA. Again the other threads have lead the way - copy them, ISPA WILL look into genuine issues like this one where POPLA have failed miserably.

POPLA are failing the public as regards the only (main) poxy law they need to understand!

You do realise NOT to pay, I hope?

Umkomaas

I thought the Lead adjudictor's name was John Gallagher?

Yep C-m, you're right. Not a good night for me (I suspect not for you either!).

martin2345uk

Would the Parking Prankster be interested in picking up this kind of thing as well? Maybe some additional negative publicity would make POPLA pull their socks up a bit!

Umkomaas

martin2345uk wrote: »

Would the Parking Prankster be interested in picking up this kind of thing as well? Maybe some additional negative publicity would make POPLA pull their socks up a bit!

I'm sure he's well on the case already. I expect he'll be picking his moment!