HELP!! Parking charge for entering wrong VRM

Petal500

Hi
I received a parking charge notice from smart parking 16 days after the alleged contravention.
I appealed as I had the ticket receipts as proof of purchase.
Smart parking refused my appeal as I had entred a zero instead of the letter O in the VRM
I now intend to appeal to POPLA.
I understand that there is information on a newbie thread but I cannot find it. Please help.
Apologies in advance if it's obvious

Redx

the NEWBIES FAQ thread is usually the second thread down from the top of this forum

read post #3 , and construct your own popla appeal , especially based on the late NTK delivery so they have failed POFA2012 and failed to transfer liability to the driver

I think this thread may be similar too (although its PE not SMART)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5740958

also, complain strongly to the landowner or retail outlet

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5748204


The IAS has told its appeal handlers that mistakes such as 0 instead of O or 1 instead of I should be put down to human error and forgiven.


Legally trivial mistakes like this come under the doctrine de minimis non curat lex - the law should not concern itself with trifles, and this IS a trifle. Not least because on a number plate there is no distinction between 0 and O or 1 and I. The rumour is that BPA will be giving the same advice to its operators, that they shouldn't defend appeals/pursue drivers on this basis. Even if your PPC is a BPA member rather than IPC, you can still point to this as an industry standard, and the legal de minimis principle undoubtedly applies.

Loadsofchildren123

plus they are out of time at 16 days to have served the NtK.


Do not identify the driver, appeal/defend as keeper relying on non-compliance with POFA, and also the de minimis point.

Petal500

Hi
Thanks for all your responses, I am putting together my appeal with more confidence now.
Is a Parking Charge Notice the same as NTK. It doesn't say NTK on the letter.

Redx

yes, same thing

it came in the post to the keeper

so its a Parking Charge Notice To (the) Keeper

postal PCN = NTK

Petal500

So I can't use that as a failing on their side? I'm a little confused other posts have used it against parking companies.

Redx

depends what it says and also if it came within the POFA2012 timeframe

most NTK,s are disputed due to incorrect information or late delivery , or non-delivery in some cases

yours was delivered but may have failed compliance ?

post #2 AND post #4 told you that they failed compliance, so thats a major appeal point

Loadsofchildren123

There are 2 ways of issuing charges:


1. windscreen pcn - this is a NtD. This is followed by a postal NtK which must be received by the keeper between 28 and 56 days later. The NtK fails to make the keeper liable (as keeper rather than driver) if it doesn't comply with POFA in its format or the date it's sent.


2. no windscreen pcn, in which case there is no NtD at any stage, just a postal NtK which must be received within 14 days. The NtK fails to make the keeper liable (as keeper rather than as driver) if its format or the date it's sent to you doesn't comply with POFA.


If the NtK doesn't meet POFA's requirements then keeper cannot be liable and they must prove that the keeper was the driver.

Loadsofchildren123

I don't know if POPLA will accept the human error/de minimis argument. The BPA hasn't made any recommendations to its members like IAS has made to IPC members/adjudicators.


But that's a driver's defence. You have the keeper's defence that the NtK wasn't sent to you in time.

Guys_Dad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

plus they are out of time at 16 days to have served the NtK.


Do not identify the driver, appeal/defend as keeper relying on non-compliance with POFA, and also the de minimis point.

The POFA point on out of time is only relevant if you have not identified the driver in your initial appeal.

Did you?