Parking appeal rejected, now what?

annmarie22

I parked in a PPS car park and in put one letter of my number plate in correctly when purchasing my ticket, I put in a K instead of an X. I appealed this ticket as I did pay for parking and they would have been able to seen on their systems due to the cameras that the number plate I did input in fact did not park in their car park. I therefore thought it would be a straight forward case. After all they have not lost any money by my mistake. However my appeal was rejected on the grounds that the machine states you must input the correct number plate. As if I input the wrong one on purpose!! I was 7 months pregnant and parking for work. I do not agree with the rejected appeal, after all If there was a human being walking round checking tickets they would have seen mine in the window and I would not be in this position, PPS have not offered to refund the parking that I did pay, its a simple mistake, human error, I did not intentionally evade paying for parking. They have now sent me a letter threatening court however there is not information on this letter to explain that process or any other options I have. I just states that court will incur more costs to me. How much more? what is involved in going to court? can I appeal again? has anyone actually been taken to court?

Carthesis

Did you identify yourself as the driver in the appeal?

Do you still have the ticket?

annmarie22

yes I did identify myself as I had to explain i had purchased a ticket. Yes I still have a photocopy of the ticket (Because I purchased it for work I sent it off to claim my expenses back from my employer before knowing I had a parking ticket as that came in the post)

Carthesis

That's a shame as it makes it a bit more difficult. For reference, you should never ever identify yourself as the driver - always respond as the Registered Keeper; never use "me, myself and I" type sentences. Still, no matter.

Write back to them again. Explain to them that as a pregnant woman you have Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act, and that they are providing 'indirect discrimination' for which they are liable. Point out to them again (with a copy of the ticket) that you had paid the correct fee for parking. If you can, get a photograph of the machine you used to demonstrate the small keypad (if applicable) to demonstrate this could be a simple typo. Point out to them that they have suffered no financial loss as a result of this 'incident', and invite them to cancel it again.

They almost certainly won't but you have at least shown yourself to be reasonable.

From this point on, you simply ignore them and anything else you get from them, or from Debt Collectors, or from scumbag solicitors. If you're planning to move house, remember to notify them just in case, but otherwise you're in a holding pattern until and if you get actual court papers.

Coupon-mad

The above is good advice, a robust response to put PPS on notice that you were pregnant and therefore were protected by the Equality Act. You could really 'go to town' in this response and make it clear you will defend, if they should later think of trying court (make it clear you are not the 'low-hanging fruit' victim that these firms choose for the odd rare claim):



Start with your paragraph saying that you are covered by the Equality Act 2010 under the maternity provision and cannot be disadvantaged by a feature of your condition (if the typo was in fact your error - which PPS have failed to prove anyway - it can be accounted for by known issues with processing small details when pregnant).


Then continue assertively:


A reasonable person would never accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple (and very easily reconciled within your own systems) problem of a single digit typo in a VRN that your ANPR system already has stored on entry. This sort of alleged 'contract' would clearly not have been upheld had ParkingEye brought such a baseless case as far as the Supreme Court and indeed this sort of unfair, punitive charge is the very essence of the sort of simple contract that the Judges agreed could still be compared to Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty...and it is evidence that PPS' charge would fail.

To charge £100 over and above the (undisputed) paid tariff to a valid car park user whose ticket was paid for and displayed in good faith, is clearly not commercially justified by any stretch of the 'legitimate interests' excuse, other than punishing drivers for profit. Nor does it pass the tests of fairness and transparency and the commercial intent behind the mere instruction to 'type in a VRN' is hidden, rendering it a 'misleading omission' within Consumer law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 and CPUTRs 2008).

the fact is, I followed instructions and paid and displayed. If there was a typo then it may have been my error or it may have been a fault with PPS' own keypad, or even a slip by your system in recording the letters & numbers I typed in. You have shown no evidence that puts me at fault and since I was reclaiming the cost of parking from my employer there was no question of any deliberate evasion on my part.

I made reasonable endeavours to comply with the instructions and if there was either a typo by me in my pregnant state or in the alternative, a malfunction with the P&D machine's record, I cannot be called to account for that. It would be a simple matter for PPS to actually link the ANPR to the P&D machine and display an image of my car to confirm the correct vehicle (this is the case in some car parks using similar systems). If PPS took those steps then it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket.

PPS are reminded of the 'Clean Hands Doctrine'. Even if a driver does make a mistake with their VRN, then this is certainly a known issue with such systems. The BPA were your former ATA and you are well aware that the applicable Code of Practice you used to be bound by when in their AOS, called upon operators using ANPR technology to make several checks before issuing PCNs to ensure charges were 'appropriate'.

Just because PPS is now in an ATA using a Code which appears to any reasonable person, to require far more lax standards, does not mean that you are enabled under current UK consumer law to 'sit on your hands' and smugly rack up £100 charges against drivers whose VRN errors would previously have been considered minor/easy to identify, such that PCNs would never have been issued under the BPA Code.

Your charge is also exposed as unfair under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the apparently innocuous requirement to type in a registration number 'fails to identify its commercial intent'. Entering the VRN is a mere instruction but nowhere is it clearly warned that this is an 'obligation' under contract, with onerous repercussions for any slip, even if caused by the keypad.

Two very recent claims by Excel Parking have been won by Defendants making a very similar point about these P&D machines and the finding was that they complied with the terms by 'paying and displaying' and no contractual obligation was breached:

C8DP11F9 - Excel v Mrs S - 09/09/2016, Oldham Court

C8DP36F0 - Excel v Ms C - 17/10/16, Stockport Court.

Further, be advised that if you try a small claim against me I will also assert that PPS' signs fail the requirement for transparency of terms (neither passing the tests under consumer law, nor passing ICO requirements re ANPR nor complying with your own ATA's Code of Practice) and do not meet the high bar set by the Beavis 'brief' and 'prominent' signage, which gave adequate notice of the parking charge and terms.

Finally, I will not be availing myself of any 'offer' to refer this to the IPC-funded 'IAS'. It is noted that the general consensus among consumers who have tried that dubious service is that it appears to be a 'kangaroo court' with bizarre anonymous decisions. The IAS calls itself 'ADR' yet the burden falls upon the consumer - not the claimant/operator - to prove their case and on their website it is admitted that 'the normal civil rules of evidence do not apply'. Even more concerning is the observation that the Directors of the IPC are the same people who run Gladstones Solicitors which raises a significant conflict of interests, should you try a small claim using that firm.

I urge you to cancel this charge and to remove my data from your systems. Do not harass me with debt collector letters as an excuse to pluck additional 'costs' out of thin air and in an effort to intimidate me. Should you feel you have a case, then it should be progressed now, in order to mitigate costs and any such claim will be robustly defended.

yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

annmarie22 wrote: »

They have now sent me a letter threatening court however there is not information on this letter to explain that process or any other options I have. I just states that court will incur more costs to me. How much more? what is involved in going to court? can I appeal again? has anyone actually been taken to court?

If you end up defending a small claim we'll help you write a defence incorporating much of what has been set out above. Hence why I suggest hit PPS with it now, to make yourself a less obvious victim to choose for a claim (mostly they do not sue, and just send daft debt collector letters which you can laugh at!).

You can't appeal again - DO NOT TRY THE IAS! The above post explains why not.

A few people have been taken to court, yes, here are the two Excel cases I mentioned:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/excel-parking-get-gladstonedby-bw-legal.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/bw-legal-how-to-winlose-claim.html

These cases are winnable with no huge cost risk at all (if you lose you'd pay about £150 that's all, no CCJ, no effect AT ALL on you or your credit rating). But we have not seen a single poster here lose v Gladstones yet after getting a defence from this forum, indeed most seem not to progress to a hearing at all.

annmarie22

This is sounds great but if I am honest I do not understand most of it? If I can log in still to my appeal and there reply would you mind reading it please to ensure everything above is relevant?

this was my appeal:
You completed the appeal on 20/05/2016 19:10:57.

I paid to park my car and displayed the ticket for the time and date in question. Please find ticket attached. I was 7 months pregnant and made a simple error with the last letter of my number plate. On receiving my original appeal it was clear to PPS that I had paid to park and unmatched payments should have been checked, to my knowledge this has not happened. It is not fair to continue with the parking charge now it is obvious the correct fee was paid to park in the first place.

the response:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 20/05/2016 16:29:57.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 25/04/2016.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 25/04/2016.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
Background
This vehicle was seen to contravene the terms and conditions of parking on 12-04-2016 at 11:45 by our
ANPR camera controlled system as parking had not been paid for at our Keaton Road, Ivybridge Car Park.
The PCN was sent to the registered keeper on 25 April 2016.
Appeals
In their initial appeal the appellant attached their pay and display ticket and stated it was clearly displayed
on the dashboard.
We replied the vehicle was found to have parked on site without payment having been made to
correctly validate its stay. The vehicle registration was not recognised on our system when they were
parked on site. The signs are clear and unambiguous. “The vehicle was found to have parked on site
without payment having been made to validate its stay. Please find attached a screenshot of the
whitelist showing all sessions against the above vehicle registration, you’ll see there was no payment
made on the day in question. The parking charge notice was issued for your vehicles registration and
therefore the charge was issued correctly. The pay and display site is operated by cameras and therefore
if the vehicle has not been authorised to park on site then a charge will be issued
Conditions on Signage and Images
Having no pay and display ticket correctly validating their stay is contrary to the advertised terms and
conditions at this site as displayed on signage at the entrance, on the tariff back boards and throughout
the site, specifically at Paragraph 1 on these signs. You can see this on the attached photographs in the
“conditions on signage” documents. The onus is on the driver to ensure terms and conditions are met.
In the “images” documents you will see the ANPR camera has captured this vehicle entering and leaving
the site.
You will see in our “Conditions on signage” documents that there are instructions for use on the pay and
display machine. The first instruction says to enter full number plate in, the second instruction asks the
motorist to confirm the number plate by pressing the green tick. It is at this point motorists would be
expected to check they had entered the correct registration number and if not to cancel and start again.
At this point the motorist has not had to put any money into the machine.
You willsee on the attached Tariff Board signage that paragraph 11 of the terms and conditions of parking
clearly state that if required to enter vehicle registration number in to authorise parking full and exact
details must be entered correctly.
We have included a screen shot from our system showing that no payment was made on 12 April 2016
for WG53 &&&
You will also see in our “Conditions on Signage” documents there is a clear warning sign on the pay and
display machine stating the failure to enter the registration number correctly may result in a PCN being
issued. There is a sticker on the machine which reads “your vehicle will not be authorised to park and you
may be issued with a PCN if you enter your number plate incorrectly.”
Parking Charge Notice
A copy of the PCN is enclosed. Given the evidence produced this PCN was issued correctly. The
photographs in our “Images” documents shows the time the vehicle entered the car park and the time it
left. You will see in our screen shot no payment had been made for vehicle WG53 &&&. Therefore the
appellant has not correctly validated their stay and this vehicle was not authorized to park. The system
we use uses a camera to match the vehicle registration numbers of vehicles using the car park to those
entered into the machine so that we are able to tell who has paid. Accordingly, we have made it a term
of parking that the correct full vehicle registration number must be entered. The machine and camera do
not have the means to tell whether a registration number is a valid registration or not.
A whitelist (our screenshot) is our automated schedule which is updated immediately a registration
number is entered into the pay and display machine and payment is made. This is then matched with
vehicles entering and leaving the car park captured by our ANPR cameras. If there is no vehicle
registration number entered to match the captured camera shots then a PCN is issued.
Payment may have been made by the appellant but not for the vehicle WG53 &&& and therefore there
was no record of payment for this vehicle and did not match the ANPR photographs of this vehicle.
Payment for parking is just one of the terms and conditions of parking. All the terms and conditions of
parking are advertised throughout the site and it is explained that as an ANPR site it is necessary to enter
your correct vehicle registration details onto the pay and display machine before purchasing a ticket.
When a motorist parks on private land it istheirresponsibility to check the terms and conditions of parking
and by parking they are deemed to have accepted them. The entrance sign puts them on notice to see
the terms and conditions on the signs throughout the site.
It is the motorist’s responsibility to check their details are entered correctly and the instructions on the
pay and display machine clearly outline how to do this. The pay and display ticket submitted by the
appellant does not show the correct registration number.
The ANPR system captures the vehicle entering and then exiting the site and as stated above it is then
matched to our whitelist.
Registered Keepers Details
With regards to registered keeper details these were applied for from DVLA to ascertain keeper details so
the PCN could be sent out.

Adjudicators decision:
In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the law of contract and is only able to deal with legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances. Once liability has been established only the Parking Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.
In this case the parking charge notice was issued because the Appellant had parked on private land but had failed by one letter to enter her correct registration number and as a result she breached the terms for parking on that site. The machine makes it clear in the images that any such error may lead to the issue of a P.C.N and unfortunately for this lady that is what has happened even though she has produced the ticket with the wrong number on it to prove she did pay to park that day on this site. The Adjudicator's remit is only to deal with legal challenges and not factual matters as set out above and as a result this Appeal must be dismissed however much sympathy one may have for this Appellant.

Coupon-mad

This is sounds great but if I am honest I do not understand most of it?

Tell us which bits you don't understand? You only need to write the first paragraph about being covered by the maternity provisions of the Equality Act 2010 then copy the rest which, if you take another look, is merely wordy but not hard to understand what's actually being said.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Start with your paragraph saying that you are covered by the Equality Act 2010 under the maternity provision and cannot be disadvantaged by a feature of your condition (if the typo was in fact your error - which PPS have failed to prove anyway - it can be accounted for by known issues with processing small details when pregnant).


Then continue assertively:


A reasonable person would never accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple (and very easily reconciled within your own systems) problem of a single digit typo in a VRN that your ANPR system already has stored on entry. This sort of alleged 'contract' would clearly not have been upheld had ParkingEye brought such a baseless case as far as the Supreme Court and indeed this sort of unfair, punitive charge is the very essence of the sort of simple contract that the Judges agreed could still be compared to Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty...and it is evidence that PPS' charge would fail.

To charge £100 over and above the (undisputed) paid tariff to a valid car park user whose ticket was paid for and displayed in good faith, is clearly not commercially justified by any stretch of the 'legitimate interests' excuse, other than punishing drivers for profit. Nor does it pass the tests of fairness and transparency and the commercial intent behind the mere instruction to 'type in a VRN' is hidden, rendering it a 'misleading omission' within Consumer law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 and CPUTRs 2008).

the fact is, I followed instructions and paid and displayed. If there was a typo then it may have been my error or it may have been a fault with PPS' own keypad, or even a slip by your system in recording the letters & numbers I typed in. You have shown no evidence that puts me at fault and since I was reclaiming the cost of parking from my employer there was no question of any deliberate evasion on my part.

I made reasonable endeavours to comply with the instructions and if there was either a typo by me in my pregnant state or in the alternative, a malfunction with the P&D machine's record, I cannot be called to account for that. It would be a simple matter for PPS to actually link the ANPR to the P&D machine and display an image of my car to confirm the correct vehicle (this is the case in some car parks using similar systems). If PPS took those steps then it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket.

PPS are reminded of the 'Clean Hands Doctrine'. Even if a driver does make a mistake with their VRN, then this is certainly a known issue with such systems. The BPA were your former ATA and you are well aware that the applicable Code of Practice you used to be bound by when in their AOS, called upon operators using ANPR technology to make several checks before issuing PCNs to ensure charges were 'appropriate'.

Just because PPS is now in an ATA using a Code which appears to any reasonable person, to require far more lax standards, does not mean that you are enabled under current UK consumer law to 'sit on your hands' and smugly rack up £100 charges against drivers whose VRN errors would previously have been considered minor/easy to identify, such that PCNs would never have been issued under the BPA Code.

Your charge is also exposed as unfair under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the apparently innocuous requirement to type in a registration number 'fails to identify its commercial intent'. Entering the VRN is a mere instruction but nowhere is it clearly warned that this is an 'obligation' under contract, with onerous repercussions for any slip, even if caused by the keypad.

Two very recent claims by Excel Parking have been won by Defendants making a very similar point about these P&D machines and the finding was that they complied with the terms by 'paying and displaying' and no contractual obligation was breached:

C8DP11F9 - Excel v Mrs S - 09/09/2016, Oldham Court

C8DP36F0 - Excel v Ms C - 17/10/16, Stockport Court.

Further, be advised that if you try a small claim against me I will also assert that PPS' signs fail the requirement for transparency of terms (neither passing the tests under consumer law, nor passing ICO requirements re ANPR nor complying with your own ATA's Code of Practice) and do not meet the high bar set by the Beavis 'brief' and 'prominent' signage, which gave adequate notice of the parking charge and terms.

Finally, I will not be availing myself of any 'offer' to refer this to the IPC-funded 'IAS'. It is noted that the general consensus among consumers who have tried that dubious service is that it appears to be a 'kangaroo court' with bizarre anonymous decisions. The IAS calls itself 'ADR' yet the burden falls upon the consumer - not the claimant/operator - to prove their case and on their website it is admitted that 'the normal civil rules of evidence do not apply'. Even more concerning is the observation that the Directors of the IPC are the same people who run Gladstones Solicitors which raises a significant conflict of interests, should you try a small claim using that firm.

I urge you to cancel this charge and to remove my data from your systems. Do not harass me with debt collector letters as an excuse to pluck additional 'costs' out of thin air and in an effort to intimidate me. Should you feel you have a case, then it should be progressed now, in order to mitigate costs and any such claim will be robustly defended.

yours faithfully,

The_Deep

This is not rocket science, it is not even good law, it is a scam. They rely on fear and lies to make their money.

If this happened in a council car park, you would almost certainly get off. As a non touch typist I make keyboard errors every 5-6 characters, it is not a biggie.

You have the extra cushion of the Equality Act 2010, use it. Read about "protected characteristics" and "reasonable adjustments".

They will huff and puff, and tell you lies, and make dire threats, but in the end all that matters is what a judge says, and he/she will say "not guilty, next".