Indigo PCN Leagrave Station - accidently put wrong reg in Connect app

Coupon-mad

The keeper/driver thing depends if you said you were driving: 'I parked' etc. in the first appeal. Did you?

i've copied from the other post and tweaked where I see fit, but I'm unsure about the signage section as I haven't had a chance to go back to the station and check out the signs. All I remember is that the signs are very small and at far ends of the carpark, I can't remember about the entrance. I will try and go have a look today but might not be possible.

Doesn't matter - the burden falls to the PPC to disprove what you say and we always go for 'unclear, wordy signs' even if a person has never ever seen them, being the keeper, might not have visited the car park ever but we still include that appeal point in detail. It's always true, Indigo signs are thousands of small characters with the £xxx charge hidden in the small print - not good enough.


You could add here, extra words as shown:

Payment was made whilst the car was parked that day. There is no time limit on the sign to pay by phone and nor is there an express obligation stated, nor any warning about the risk of inputting the fully correct VRN, particularly when paying by phone. A driver is not warned that a charge can arise from a mere typo and a reasonable man would conclude that such a matter would have resulted in the PCN being cancelled at first appeal stage. I honestly believe that the bylaws do not contain this obligation and resulting onerous risk, expressly stated anywhere at all either and I put the operator to strict proof to the contrary.

inzimam

Many thanks for your reply, I'll add the bit you suggested

This is the wording of my appeal email to them

I have received a penalty notice on my car yesterday when parking in Leagrave station car park. I had paid for the full day parking rate using the Connect cashless payment app (See attached).

When I returned to my car I noticed the Penalty Notice stuck on my windscreen. I then submitted an appeal on your appeals website, attaching my receipt. It wasn't until afterwards did I realise the reason for the ticket was as I had by mistake input my car registration as XXXXXXXX, incorrect by one character.

This is clearly a typing error and as the train station/Indigo are not out of pocket since I had paid the proper parking rate, I would like to request the cancellation of my ticket.

Coupon-mad

Yes, driver definitely admitted. You can't use point #6 then, at all.

inzimam

Do you think that limits my appeal? Any other wording needs changing then in that case?

Coupon-mad

inzimam wrote: »

Do you think that limits my appeal? Any other wording needs changing then in that case?

I would also get rid of #4 completely. I don't think that limits your appeal. You are most likely to win on one of the remaining points of appeal.

inzimam

Point 4 seems valid to me since i did pay - can you clarify why you feel i should remove it?

Umkomaas

inzimam wrote: »

Point 4 seems valid to me since i did pay - can you clarify why you feel i should remove it?

Because the UTCCR has been superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2015/09/consumer-rights-act-2015-what-has-changed#sthash.64esWCAu.dpbs

This article will focus on the changes introduced by Parts 1 and 2 of the CRA, which will replace either wholly or in part a number of existing statutes that impact on the area of consumer law, including the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. - See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2015/09/consumer-rights-act-2015-what-has-changed#sthash.64esWCAu.dpuf

Coupon-mad

And because 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' has been binned thanks to to the Judges at the Supreme Court.

They astonishingly found against Mr Beavis for the heinous crime of his 'overstay' when shopping (he was delayed through no fault of his own, due to a faulty machine in a shop where he was a genuine customer). The Judges made the law fit the private parking model, when they lapped up ParkingEye's convoluted Capita-funded argument that they should be able to penalise people because it was 'justified' (never mind there being no loss) and the Supreme Court gave judgment against driver consumers, in National Consumers' Week.

You could replace your point #4 with something like post #10 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5457390

HTH

inzimam

Thanks

I've amended my appeal. Last question before I submit - do I choose the 'i was not improperly parked' option on the popla website?

Umkomaas

inzimam wrote: »

Thanks

I've amended my appeal. Last question before I submit - do I choose the 'i was not improperly parked' option on the popla website?

You use 'Other'. Attach your appeal as a .pdf file.