Popla declined our appeal***help***

Miffylou

Afternoon, I’m hoping someone can advise, we were on holiday in Cornwall in September , parked at fistral beach came home and 2 weeks later received a fine, I knew we had paid, it turns out that our registration ends OTY as in O for orange and I put in a zero 0, obviously we appealed and that has been declined, they have confirmed we paid for the wrong registration and that I should have rectified it when I noticed, which was when I got the notice, I am at my witts end that they have confirmed we paid but due to one digit wrong have refused our appeal, I don’t have £100 to pay which is why I appealed hoping they’d see sense and I wouldn’t need to pay, please can someone help with what will happen next will we get taken to court?
Thanks for any help

pappa_golf

let this one go to court , the DVLA does not differenciate between O and 0 , in fact the typeface used by the DVLA has one of those missing , so why should the parking co use a keyboard that accept non legal digits




a judge will kick this out , and laugh at them

Miffylou

Thanks so much, I didn’t know this,I was gobsmacked when we appealed and they declined even stating we had paid but one digit was wrong, popla clearly aren’t on the drivers side or make any sensible decisions
Thanks for your help

Guys_Dad

If POPLA declined your appeal, can you confirm that it was simply a zero/O problem and please can you post up what their rejection stated.

It is absolutely ridiculous for both the PPC and POPLA to try it on for a simple zero/O transposition.

Coupon-mad

I would send a complaint to the BPA that they are allowing POPLA to adjudicate on cases with a very minor matter of a '0' or 'O' dispute, when it is known that the DVLA do not differentiate and the digits are one and the same on a car numberplate.

Ask in your email complaint (PCN number and name of PPC in the subject line, plus 'FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THE OPERATOR AND POPLA') if the BPA are proud of falling behind the IAS in this regard, after all, a commitment to continuous improvement must be a prerequisite for any service.

Also tell them that you are copying in your MP to this formal complaint, and do not expect to be fobbed off by the usual couldn't care less reply, loosely (sadly) deemed to follow this style: 'this isn't a rule in our Code of Practice, so we can't (or we won't) do anything, so we are closing the case, go away you unwashed member of the public, as our beloved fee-paying AOS members have money to make'.*

The Lead Adjudicator, Bryn Holloway (a Barrister) of the rival 'service' the IAS, has published his annual report for 2016/2017. In his foreword, he stated that:

A commitment to continuous improvement must be a prerequisite for any service that seeks to provide truly independent redress for consumers. While the IAS has continued to grow since the 2015/2016 report, it is significant that we have also taken every opportunity to ensure the service evolves and develops to provide the best possible service to the Consumer. One example involved a growing concern that motorists were being unduly penalised for the most trivial of mistakes when entering their vehicle registration numbers as they are registering for parking. Of course, it is incumbent upon the motorist to take reasonable care in entering their details, and when they fail to do so properly very often a charge may be justified. However, where the mistake is so trivial that even someone applying their full attention might not realise - such as entering a ‘0’ instead of a ‘O’ or a ‘1’ instead of an ‘I’ - then it is, in my view, unfair to enforce a charge.

As a consequence, I released guidance to all the adjudicators that they should have regard to the nature and extent of such mistakes in determining whether a charge is lawful. I am pleased to say that, since issuing the guidance, there has been a visible reduction in the amount of cases where operators pursue such parking charges and far fewer (justifiably) frustrated motorists as a result.

Send it to Steve Clark at the BPA, because he has a good reputation for listening & getting things done:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

And do copy in your MP.

The Consumer Rights Act requires a test of fairness on any contractual dispute like this, clearly this one fails. Take heart that this would NOT be hard to defend in court and we win 99% of defended cases here!



* NB that's a tongue in cheek version, no BPA clerk has ever replied thus (not exactly).

Redx

as above ^^^^^^^^^^^^

make them squirm

and if necessary, let a judge decide

Umkomaas

Smart Parking will never chance such a flimsy case in court. After all, since their existence, and in the past 3 years, some ~900,000 tickets issued, they’ve only chanced their arm at court on 18 occasions.

If they’re stupid enough to try, and you get a LBC or real court papers, come back for more advice, but I’m confident in saying, in the above context, we won’t see you again here.