Please Help with (NOT SO) Smart Parking PCN

yotmon

I wonder what would happen if a dyslexic person used the car park - would the Equality act apply. Love to see a case like this taken as far as court.

W00DY

Which is a better opening, THIS:

On (DATE), I came home to find a Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking, dated (DATE).

Background:-
I appealed to Smart Parking who rejected my appeal on (DATE). I am appealing as the registered keeper of this vehicle, with licence plate number (NUMBER BLOCKED OUT).

I dispute that I am liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:-

OR THIS:

On 27/05/2016, I received a Parking Charge Notice letter from Smart Parking, alleging a parking offence on 24/05/2016, and demanding a charge to be paid. My appeal to the Operator, Smart Parking was rejected on 27/06/2016. I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration **** *** and I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:

* No keeper liability
* No driver liability
* No landowner authority
* The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis
* The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made nocontract with the driver.

********************

1:- No Keeper Liability

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Paragraph 9, states that the Notice to Keeper must state the following:

9(1)''A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 9(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is- (i) specified in the notice; and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper;

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d)has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

Smart Parking did not properly specify the vehicle, did not identify the relevant land, and did not specify a 'period of parking'. The location is ambiguous: ‘CO-OP MOWBRAY’. Smart Parking failed to inform me of the circumstances under which the requirement to pay charges arose and the other facts that made them payable. Smart Parking also failed to inform me as Keeper, that they do not know the name and address of the driver and to ‘pass the notice to the driver’.

Further, there is an absence of any warning whatsoever, about ‘keeper liability’. Arguably, above all other wording omissions, the specific liability warning in 9(2)(f) is absolutely fundamental for ‘keeper liability’ so I cannot be held liable under the applicable law.


2:- No driver liability

There is no possibility of POPLA finding that ‘driver liability’ can apply to me because I am not appealing ‘on behalf of’ the driver nor as the driver. I am the registered keeper only and the driver has not been identified.

Without keeper liability, Smart Parking have no cause to pursue me or retain my data yet they refused my appeal and still expect me to appeal to POPLA.


3:- No landowner authority

Section 7 of the BPA CoP states that an operator must have the written authorisation of the Landowner, if the parking company does not own the land, which Smart Parking do not.

Paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Smart Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not another agent, shop, etc) and I would also point out these mandatory requirements, which a vague ‘witness statement’ will not prove:

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
I do not believe that Smart Parking have a contract with the site landowner which meets all the requirements above.


4:- The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis

It appears that a partial registration number may have been recorded, either by inadvertent error of the disabled/elderly driver, or by failure of the operator's own keypad, or failure of the signage to make the full VRN a clear 'obligation' with risk of a penalty. No evidence has been produced either way by this operator as to the cause of the issue and it is not disputed by any party that there was certainly no attempt to avoid payment, which was made in full.

This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no overstay and no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner. This was a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a machine and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held:

''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times,endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;’ ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine:
''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination.

At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company:
''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'. A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position in at least two ways:

- the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent, to enter the FULL VRN. The CRA states: ''A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract or a written consumer notice is transparent. To be transparent it must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and be legible...any subject matter terms must not be hidden in any small print otherwise the price and the subject matter terms will be assessed for "fairness". ''

- Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.


The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver.

The alleged breach took place in what was the CO-OP store car park in Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. The store closed in January 2016. Having subsequently visited the site, the main sign at the immediate vehicle entrance to the car park is barely noticeable as drivers who, unable to stop at that point in the road, rightly strive to accord with legal and safe driving practice. Indeed the text is so small as to render the sign unreadable and unremarkable. The sign is impossible to read whilst entering the car park and is insufficiently eyecatching to give one cause to revisit after parking. I believe SmartParking have done this quite deliberately so as to have the claim afterwards that signage is provided, but in the full knowledge all the while that it is highly unlikely that its message will be recognised or noted by drivers.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of those signs were positioned between the alleged contravening parked car and the pedestrian entrance. It is highly unlikely that a driver even saw a sign. I require SmartParking to prove beyond any doubt that there was a suitable sign, meeting the requirements of the law, within the clear line of sight of the driver on the driver’s walking route from the exact position of the parked car and the entrance that the driver used on that day.

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle can not have seen any clear, unambiguous sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. In their rejection of my appeal, SmartParking assert that I was the driver (when no such information has been passed to SmartParking) that by merely entering the carpark “I“ agreed to the terms and conditions. This is an utter nonsense, requiring a driver, even one with full faculty and cognition, to have agreed to terms and conditions upon entry and before having become aware of signage or read and understood the terms and conditions.


Can I somehow incorporate the following into my appeal...?

1. Unclear signs not making any obligation transparent, to input the full VRN or pay £100 and also that the P&D machine should not be able to accept a partial VRN if it is so important (and after all, the ANPR system has all the VRNs in the car park stored which could very easily be displayed by the system on that connected machine, for a driver to click on the right one)! So the system is set to catch out unwary or elderly/disabled people - it is a cumbersome keypad with tiny, weather-worn and faded numbers & letters - which is unfair under the Equality Act and Consumer Rights Act.

2. The Melton Times article - http://m.meltontimes.co.uk/news/business/business-news/woman-wins-appeal-against-smart-parking-ltd-1-7464812 ??

3. There must be a de minimis argument to be put forward in these cases where a wrong registration is keyed in. Some PPCs have pursued charges when an O is input instead of a 0 & vice versa. What about a typo that is a simple transposition of two characters? It would be simple enough to have the automated systems test for this when no match is found on ANPR records. There has been no loss of revenue & while the automated systems can't take account where people have typed in the VRN of their second car most trivial mistakes could be caught e.g. in this case the machine should not allow a ticket to be issued when an incomplete VRN is entered. I wonder what would happen if a dyslexic person used the car park - would the Equality act apply. Love to see a case like this taken as far as court.

**A closing statement**?!

W00DY

Guys thanks so much for additional posts, very helpful How's my latest appeal wording looking? Letter from Smart says I've got 28 days to appeal with Popla, from date on the letter which is the 27th June...idiotically I'm leaving this anxiously late as I guess Mon 25th is last day :-/

W00DY

Just checked the popla code on parking cowboys site and confirms deadline as next Monday...eeeeeekk

Umkomaas

Without keeper liability, Smart Parking have no cause to pursue me or retain my data yet they refused my appeal and still expect me to appeal to POPLA.

Without keeper liability, under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012 - so named to also 'protect' the keeper unless full compliance with all mandatory requirements have been met - Smart Parking have no cause to pursue me or retain my data yet they refused my appeal and still expect me to appeal to POPLA.

Coupon-mad

This shorter introduction is fine, your first suggested one:

On (DATE), I came home to find a Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking, dated (DATE).

Background:-
I appealed to Smart Parking who rejected my appeal on (DATE). I am appealing as the registered keeper of this vehicle, with licence plate number (NUMBER BLOCKED OUT).

I dispute that I am liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:-

Your signage point needs numbering as 5).

And yes, re the points below, bung it all in, the first part leads on from your point #5 on signage and the other two points can be stand alone extra appeal points. Long appeals make Smart's eyes glaze over, which is the intention! They often just fold.

Can I somehow incorporate the following into my appeal...?

1. Unclear signs not making any obligation transparent, to input the full VRN or pay £100 and also that the P&D machine should not be able to accept a partial VRN if it is so important (and after all, the ANPR system has all the VRNs in the car park stored which could very easily be displayed by the system on that connected machine, for a driver to click on the right one)! So the system is set to catch out unwary or elderly/disabled people - it is a cumbersome keypad with tiny, weather-worn and faded numbers & letters - which is unfair under the Equality Act and Consumer Rights Act.

2. The Melton Times article - http://m.meltontimes.co.uk/news/business/business-news/woman-wins-appeal-against-smart-parking-ltd-1-7464812 ??

3. There must be a de minimis argument to be put forward in these cases where a wrong registration is keyed in. Some PPCs have pursued charges when an O is input instead of a 0 & vice versa. What about a typo that is a simple transposition of two characters? It would be simple enough to have the automated systems test for this when no match is found on ANPR records. There has been no loss of revenue & while the automated systems can't take account where people have typed in the VRN of their second car most trivial mistakes could be caught e.g. in this case the machine should not allow a ticket to be issued when an incomplete VRN is entered. I wonder what would happen if a dyslexic person used the car park - would the Equality act apply. Love to see a case like this taken as far as court.

W00DY

FINAL DRAFT!!!!

Please can you have a last check of it...I/my elderly neighbour are eternally grateful

I'll post it separately

Just a couple of things, is the appeal process through POPLA site fairly easy/quick?! And the photos I have, ie of the original purchased ticket, are they easy to upload?

Says the deadline for appeal with Popla is the 25/07/16, is that up to and including or shall I ensure it's submitted before midnight tonight?! Nothing like leaving things until the last minute, reminds me of my school homework on the bus travelling to school!!

Thank you again,

Woody

W00DY

On (DATE), I came home to find a Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking, dated (DATE).

Background:-
I appealed to Smart Parking who rejected my appeal on (DATE). I am appealing as the registered keeper of this vehicle, with licence plate number (NUMBER BLOCKED OUT).

I dispute that I am liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:-

* No keeper liability
* No driver liability
* No landowner authority
* The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis
* The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made nocontract with the driver
* There must be a de minimis argument to be put forward in these cases where a wrong registration is keyed in
* Melton Times article

********************

1:- No Keeper Liability

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Paragraph 9, states that the Notice to Keeper must state the following:

9(1)''A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 9(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is- (i) specified in the notice; and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper;

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d)has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

Smart Parking did not properly specify the vehicle, did not identify the relevant land, and did not specify a 'period of parking'. The location is ambiguous: ‘CO-OP MOWBRAY’. Smart Parking failed to inform me of the circumstances under which the requirement to pay charges arose and the other facts that made them payable. Smart Parking also failed to inform me as Keeper, that they do not know the name and address of the driver and to ‘pass the notice to the driver’.

Further, there is an absence of any warning whatsoever, about ‘keeper liability’. Arguably, above all other wording omissions, the specific liability warning in 9(2)(f) is absolutely fundamental for ‘keeper liability’ so I cannot be held liable under the applicable law.


2:- No driver liability

There is no possibility of POPLA finding that ‘driver liability’ can apply to me because I am not appealing ‘on behalf of’ the driver nor as the driver. I am the registered keeper only and the driver has not been identified.

Without keeper liability, under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012 - so named to also 'protect' the keeper unless full compliance with all mandatory requirements have been met - Smart Parking have no cause to pursue me or retain my data yet they refused my appeal and still expect me to appeal to POPLA.


3:- No landowner authority

Section 7 of the BPA CoP states that an operator must have the written authorisation of the Landowner, if the parking company does not own the land, which Smart Parking do not.

Paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Smart Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not another agent, shop, etc) and I would also point out these mandatory requirements, which a vague ‘witness statement’ will not prove:

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
I do not believe that Smart Parking have a contract with the site landowner which meets all the requirements above.


4:- The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis

It appears that a partial registration number may have been recorded, either by inadvertent error of the disabled/elderly driver, or by failure of the operator's own keypad, or failure of the signage to make the full VRN a clear 'obligation' with risk of a penalty. No evidence has been produced either way by this operator as to the cause of the issue and it is not disputed by any party that there was certainly no attempt to avoid payment, which was made in full.

This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no overstay and no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner. This was a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a machine and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held:

''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times,endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;’ ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine:
''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination.

At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company:
''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'. A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position in at least two ways:

- the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent, to enter the FULL VRN. The CRA states: ''A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract or a written consumer notice is transparent. To be transparent it must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and be legible...any subject matter terms must not be hidden in any small print otherwise the price and the subject matter terms will be assessed for "fairness". ''

- Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.


5:- The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver.

The alleged breach took place in what was the CO-OP store car park in Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. The store closed in January 2016. Having subsequently visited the site, the main sign at the immediate vehicle entrance to the car park is barely noticeable as drivers who, unable to stop at that point in the road, rightly strive to accord with legal and safe driving practice. Indeed the text is so small as to render the sign unreadable and unremarkable. The sign is impossible to read whilst entering the car park and is insufficiently eyecatching to give one cause to revisit after parking. I believe SmartParking have done this quite deliberately so as to have the claim afterwards that signage is provided, but in the full knowledge all the while that it is highly unlikely that its message will be recognised or noted by drivers.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of those signs were positioned between the alleged contravening parked car and the pedestrian entrance. It is highly unlikely that a driver even saw a sign. I require SmartParking to prove beyond any doubt that there was a suitable sign, meeting the requirements of the law, within the clear line of sight of the driver on the driver’s walking route from the exact position of the parked car and the entrance that the driver used on that day.

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle can not have seen any clear, unambiguous sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. In their rejection of my appeal, SmartParking assert that I was the driver (when no such information has been passed to SmartParking) that by merely entering the carpark “I“ agreed to the terms and conditions. This is an utter nonsense, requiring a driver, even one with full faculty and cognition, to have agreed to terms and conditions upon entry and before having become aware of signage or read and understood the terms and conditions.

Unclear signs not making any obligation transparent, to input the full VRN or pay £100 and also that the P&D machine should not be able to accept a partial VRN if it is so important (and after all, the ANPR system has all the VRN's in the car park stored which could very easily be displayed by the system on that connected machine, for a driver to click on the right one). So the system is set to catch out unwary or elderly/disabled people - it is a cumbersome keypad with tiny numbers & letters - which is unfair under the Equality Act and Consumer Rights Act.


6:- There must be a de minimis argument to be put forward in these cases where a wrong registration is keyed in.

Some PPCs have pursued charges when an O is input instead of a 0 & vice versa. What about a typo that is a simple transposition of two characters? It would be simple enough to have the automated systems test for this when no match is found on ANPR records. There has been no loss of revenue & while the automated systems can't take account where people have typed in the VRN of their second car most trivial mistakes could be caught e.g. in this case the machine should not allow a ticket to be issued when an incomplete VRN is entered. I wonder what would happen if a dyslexic person used the car park - the Equality act could easily apply.


7:- Melton Times article

The Melton Times have recently published an article whereby a person won their appeal against Smart Parking after POPLA investigated:

http://m.meltontimes.co.uk/news/business/business-news/woman-wins-appeal-against-smart-parking-ltd-1-7464812


I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

Kind regards,

*** *******

Coupon-mad

Says the deadline for appeal with Popla is the 25/07/16, is that up to and including or shall I ensure it's submitted before midnight tonight?!

In fact the POPLA code will still work for a few days after the 28! HONESTLY. No rush. BUT it looks good to go.

Save it as a PDF and attach it under 'other' on the POPLA website. Don't answer the other leading questions.

W00DY

Coupon-mad wrote: »

In fact the POPLA code will still work for a few days after the 28! HONESTLY. No rush.

Phew! Great, that's good to know

So, how's the appeal looking... :-/