Another Stupid POPLA Decision

trisontana

This case demonstrates that POPLA are not fit for purpose. Can't they use a bit of common sense in that the motorist only typed in part of their registration number?

http://www.monmouthshirebeacon.co.uk/article.cfm?id=108506&headline=Pensioners%20threatened%20with%20court%20over%20parking%20ticket%20typing%20error&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

What makes it worse is those comments from the land-owner:-

A spokesperson for the Wye Valley Visitor Centre added: !!!8220; This case demonstrates that the appeal process is fair, and PoPLA judges each one on its own merits so that car park operators that use ANPR cannot act as judge and jury. This independent Ombudsman service would not be available to customers if we operated the car park ourselves, because we could not guarantee to meet the high standard of evidence required.

"We support the Parking Code of Practice Bill which has had a Second Reading in the British Parliament, which we hope will require all car park operators to apply rigorous audited standards such as those of the British Parking Association, which ParkingEye is obliged to uphold."

The_Deep

Whatever PoPLA may say, it is what a judge in court thinks that matters.

CC Judges are not fools and IIMU that most are not inclined to find for PPCs where minor typos are involved. They tend to think that they are de minimus.

Umkomaas

They tend to think that they are de minimus.

De minimis @ TD.

Never mind, it's only a minor error. :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

A spokesperson for [STRIKE]the Wye Valley Visitor Centre[/STRIKE] ParkingEye added:

''This case demonstrates that the appeal process is fair, and PoPLA judges each one on its own merits so that car park operators that use ANPR cannot act as judge and jury. This independent Ombudsman service would not be available to customers if we operated the car park ourselves, because we could not guarantee to meet the high standard of evidence required.

"We support the Parking Code of Practice Bill which has had a Second Reading in the British Parliament, which we hope will require all car park operators to apply rigorous audited standards such as those of the British Parking Association, which ParkingEye is obliged to uphold."

Yeah right - Wye Valley have obviously heard about the Bill...course they have...tell us another!

More spiel from ParkingEye, for their desperate industry that needs bringing down.

The_Slithy_Tove

I'm not siding with PE or POPLA, but for goodness sake:

Brenda's mistake in typing only the last three digits of her car registration number into the machine, as is the procedure at council-run car parks, rather than the full number as signage apparently states

What a ridiculous assumption for them to make. Read the instructions - it can't be that hard. Plenty of other car parks need the full reg (council and otherwise).

Anyway, PE can't pursue this using Beavis to justify the £100. It's a pay car park, so Beavis doesn't apply. And it could be argues that the machine should not even have issued a ticket with an incomplete reg.

The_Deep

As a non typist I make several typing errors each time I complete a sentence.

For a PoPLA Adjudicator to adjudge such an error as a breach of contract which entitles the PPC to £100 is ludicrous. A judge would almost certainly throw such a case out.

PoPLA Adjudicators should apply common sense and ask themselves "what does the law intend?

Half_way

This place the Wye valley visitor centre, combined with its agents, parking eye has cropped up on here numerous times.

Somewhere i remember reading something stating that minor 'transgressions' such as inputting the reg number incorrectly should not be pursued, ( cant dig it out at the moment)

Also someone should take them to task over this nonsense on their FAQs page, as far as I am aware, they will be jointly and severely liable for the actions of their agents, they mention that the appeals service is independent, this is incorrect, as POPLA, administered by ombudsman services is funded by the British parking association limited, and the BPA ltd, which is a private members trade association and in no way a regulatory authority writes its own code of practice making the rules up as it pleases to suit its members ( ie parking eye)
heres the link to the FAQ
http://bookings.wyevalleyvisitorcentre.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&view=topic&catid=17&id=78&Itemid=346#123

Lindsay Heyes created the topic: Can I appeal a parking charge?
You can appeal a Parking Charge Notice if it was unfairly issued Our customers are not exempt from paying for parking, we do not operate the car park, and the Operator does not disclose their evidence of infringement to us, so it would not be right for us to intervene.

We are not qualified to provide an impartial or lawful appeal service, but you may find the following information useful:

The Car Park Operator is accredited, so you can appeal free of charge ParkingEye Ltd is in the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme. The appeal process is strictly regulated for your protection, with checks and balances. See the information printed on the Parking Charge Notice. If an informal appeal to the operator is unsuccessful they must give you the opportunity of a formal appeal to PoPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), the expertise, impartiality and independence of which is assured by Ombudsman Services. See the Operator's reply for details.

If you have questions for or about the car park operator please go to the FAQ at the ParkingEye website . If you need more help go to Citizens Advice for help that you can trust.

Please respect that Wye Valley Visitor Centre staff have no duty to give customer support on parking issues Information about parking given by Centre staff is out of courtesy and in good faith in the manner of any tourist information and is not intended to form a contract or constitute legal advice.
Lindsay Heyes

If ever a wye valley case goes near the small claims track, then Lindsay Heyes, and the Wye valley visitor centre should be joined to the case, to make sure that they know that the antics of their agents are their responsibility

[Deleted User]

Unlike Beavis, parking was paid for in the correct amount and therefore, in principle, there was a licence to remain on site for the period you did.

The issue then becomes whether (a) it is appropriate to charge a penalty for a typo (and make no mistake, the penalty rule is engaged - as it was in Beavis); and

(b) whether the bolt ons (usually described as indemnity costs) are in fact unspecified liquidated damages - which is what they are actually described as "a notional charge for the costs that my client has incurred" and which should therefore have been expressly stated in the contract - if you were to have agreed them.

So, to put it another way, would the ordinary consumer have appreciated that they could be charged £100 for a typo and it is the charge an appropriate mechanism to charge £100 for typos to ensure no-one makes them?

Hmm I'll leave that to you and/or the court to ponder.