Parking charge notice - PCN

Umkomaas

The problem with my appeal is that I cannot find anyone with a similar issue to my one i.e. trying to pay online but being unable to. I will search for popla letters on MSE forums to see what I can come up with.

What was the problem with my advice in post #5??

100% of cases are all the same - a scammer is after your money and your circumstances on the day are wholly irrelevant to the parking companies. This must be tackled on legal and technical issues, not mitigation.

Coupon-mad

CP Plus do not use POFA compliant Notices to Keeper. Flippin' easy to see off as long as the driver is never admitted; you could have won this with ONE email appeal. Within one week flat they'd have likely cancelled the PCN once they saw the template appeal from here.

I DO HOPE the keeper appealed, not the driver or that maybe, more by luck than judgement, you just said 'we' did this and not 'I parked' in the first appeal?

stevo_d01

Hi,
Thanks for your help everyone.

We have recently received an email from POPLA saying that we won the appeal.

For your information, we appealed on the grounds that we attempted to pay online but were unable to do so. Therefore the PCN terms and conditions were invalid. Part of my statement to POPLA was as follows:

I have received the evidence from the operator and reviewed it with the following comments:
1. As per the terms and conditions of parking, we tried to pay online within 24hrs a number of times. As this service was not working we feel the parking company did not allow us to meet their terms and conditions and as such is a breach of the contract on their part.
2. As per point 33 on the case summary rules - they state that no telephone call was received to report an issue. We tried calling 0845 287 1113 from the VivoPark website when all three of our cards were rejected for payment. We can provide evidence of this phone call if necessary from our mobile phone provider.
3. Continuation of point 33 - "no telephone call was received." This implies we made no attempt to report the issue. We sent two emails to VivoPark to report this issue hence providing written notification that we wish to pay in line with their terms and conditions and received no response at all. A follow up email was sent and still no response until the PCN was received by us. We can provide these emails if necessary as they are not included in the case history file.
4. We can provide evidence that we registered with VivoPark for online payments within 24hrs in line with the terms and conditions. We can also provide evidence that all three payment cards had sufficient funds to pay for the parking and the rejection of such payment was due to a technical fault with the Vivopark website and not a fault of our own.

In summary, VivoPark failed to provide a robust facility to pay online as per the stated terms and conditions therefore breaching their side of the contract. They also failed to respond to our repeated emails requesting advice on how to pay.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our case and hope to hear from you shortly
Kind regards

We received the following back from POPLA


Decision

Successful


Assessor Name

Siobhan Gooley


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of parking.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant states that they endeavoured to make payment in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, but that they were unable to pay by telephone or online.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle, registration xxxxxxx, entered the Two saints Car Park on 12 March 2016 at 12:48. It states that the vehicle departed at 14:58, and was on site for a total of two hours and 10 minutes. It advises that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the terms and conditions of parking were not met. The appellant has submitted the appeal on behalf of the registered keeper of the vehicle, and has not identified to POPLA or the operator who was driving the vehicle. He states that every effort was made to comply with the signage, but that payment could not be made by telephone or online, and emails were not responded to. As the driver has not been identified, and the operator issued the PCN to the keeper using details obtained from the DVLA, I am satisfied that the operator is seeking to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the PCN. Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides that liability for a parking charge may be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle, so long as certain conditions are met. I have therefore examined the notice to keeper sent by the operator to the appellant, to determine whether it is compliant with the provisions of the Act. I am not satisfied that it is, and therefore liability has not transferred to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The PCN was therefore not issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Hope this helps with other peoples appeals.

Thanks again,
Steve

Ralph-y

well done .....:j

now make sure your family and friends know all about the murky world of parking and where to come for help .........

the local rags may be interested ....

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

CP Plus do not use POFA compliant Notices to Keeper. Flippin' easy to see off as long as the driver is never admitted; you could have won this with ONE email appeal. Within one week flat they'd have likely cancelled the PCN once they saw the template appeal from here.

I DO HOPE the keeper appealed, not the driver or that maybe, more by luck than judgement, you just said 'we' did this and not 'I parked' in the first appeal?

Hahaha, you did it exactly as suggested. Nice result.

we appealed on the grounds that we attempted to pay online but were unable to do so. Therefore the PCN terms and conditions were invalid.

BTW your appeal would have lost, had you said who was driving. You may not have realised this but your appeal was weak and had nothing that would have won this for you (seems you did not attach proof of these phone calls nor emails) but happily, as stated above, CP Plus can't hold keepers liable.

So the keeper wins in a way you were not expecting!