Incorrect VRM - Notice to Keeper Received

jabber1111199999

Hello

I've received a letter (NtK - Notice to Keeper) from Britannia Parking notifying that a ticket was not paid for.

When entering the VRM into the machine it only accepted 2 characters before spitting out the ticket - accepting the monies paid.

I assume their ANPR system has scanned the vehicle - not found a VRM match to a ticket and issued a letter.

I have the parking ticket, for the time period and "just in case" took a photo of the ticket in the car at the time.

Their letter also shows the car leaving 2 minutes before the ticket expires - so the vehicle had not overstayed.


What are ones initial options here?

(thanks to all in advance!)

-- Edit

The vehicle was parked: In a privately owned off-road car park.

The first thing I received was: Some kind of civil 'parking charge notice'
-- Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper

Which county/council/borough was the vehicle in? Private

What was the alleged offence? (eg. parking where restricted, overstay, footpath parking, etc.): Failed to make a valid payment

If parked on-road, was the vehicle parked in a Controlled Parking Zone? N/a

If you got a civil 'parking charge notice' or similar, have you told the company who issued it who was driving the vehicle? Received today - no response sent

Redx

just use the blue text template appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum , appealing as KEEPER (not as driver)

attach a picture of the paid for ticket, and add a paragraph stating that

THE DRIVER SAYS THAT THE TICKET MACHINE WAS FAULTY AND HERE IS A SCAN OF THE ACTUAL PAID FOR TICKET

jabber1111199999

awesome - thanks for the speed of your response

jabber1111199999

would their "terms and conditions" not be an argument point where the correct VRM / VRN was not entered?

Redx

they might have a case against a driver, if they knew who it was , but this appeal is from a keeper , not a driver

on ther other hand , they accepted the new contract when they took the money

another argument would be that the machine would not allow an incorrect VRM to be input , that it should check a list of ones seen by the cameras within say the last 30 minutes , and offer a choice to the consumer

PPC,s are supposed to check for similar VRM including partial or slightly incorrect VRM`s before issuing a pcn

so many arguments and counter arguments exist regarding machines, have a read of parking pranksters blogs on the subject

jabber1111199999

Hello - example letter I propose to reply with


--






Dear Sirs,

With reference to you letter dated XXXXX PCN: 9999999

I wish to dispute this notice under, but not limited to, two grounds as it has not been properly issued.

The parking charge was paid, but unfortunately it appears that he VRN not accepted correctly by the machine. Accordingly, you have received monies for this parking period but have not been able to tie this to the vehicle in question. I suggest that you check the ticket logs where you can verify this ticket was purchased minutes after the vehicles entry.




I enclose a copy of the parking ticket for verification.



Further to the above, you will know that there is no liability in law for the registered keeper to provide details as to who may have been driving the vehicle at the time.

I look forwards to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled. As there is no keeper liability I do not expect to hear from you again, other than to confirm that there will be no further action.

Yours

Umkomaas

Please follow Redx's advice in post #2 - precisely.

jabber1111199999

Do you think that a heavy worded letter as an opener is a sensible move? is this a successful tactic?


reworded as below


---


Dear Sirs


Re: PCN No. ....................


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.


The Driver says that the Ticket Machine was faulty and did not accept the VRM correctly but did successfully accept the monies paid. Attached is a scan of the actual paid for ticket.


There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.


Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.


I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.


Yours faithfully,

Redx

jabber1111199999 wrote: »

Do you think that a heavy worded letter as an opener is a sensible move? is this a successful tactic?


reworded as below


---


Dear Sirs


Re: PCN No. ....................


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.


The Driver says that the Ticket Machine was faulty and did not accept the VRM correctly but did successfully accept the monies paid. Attached is a scan of the actual paid for ticket so please check your records for this entry at the time of the initial entry time to maybe a quarter of an hour later.


There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge because the drivers details will not be given to you by myself at any time.


Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.


I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.


Yours faithfully,

altered to suit , please submit it

Umkomaas

There are no statistics, but I would hazard a guess that 98% of initial appeals are rejected.

The forum, especially Coupon-mad, has taken considerable time to perfect the initial appeal letter. It is designed to flush out a POPLA code, where you can go into more detail. The initial appeal is not the place for it.

Please just follow Redx's advice.

jabber1111199999

You are all amazing people - thanks so much for your kind assistance!