POPLA rejection next step?

DilH

First, as a newbie, I may be going about this the wrong way, so I apologise - but I can't sem to find the introductory video and have spent ages wandering about the forum. This case is about a PCN from Parking Eye. They claim that the vehicle overstayed the 3 hour free period by 37 minutes. They have a photo of it entering at 14:08 and also of it leaving at 17:46.
However, the vehicle left at 15:34 and returned at 17:25, complying with the rules by returning over 1 hour after leaving, but this appears not to have been captured on camera.
A witness statement was submitted, stating that the vehicle was elsewhere at approx. 15:30, also a mobile phone timeline, showing the driver driving and visiting shops elsewhere during the interim period, supported by receipts from the shops with time and debit card number. POPLA refuse to accept this and insist that the technology is "generally" accurate. What next?

KeithP

Have PoPLA denied your appeal?

If so, you can expect several debt collector's letters.

Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread gives comprehensive guidance on how to deal with these.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim or official court papers, it will be time for you to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and post again on this thread if you need further support..

Umkomaas

Have you complained to the landowners and told them about how customers are being wrongly ticketed by the failure of PE's technology and their wanton disregard for your truthful explanation of what happened - all in the pursuit of profit.

Ask them to intervene and get this cancelled. Complaints often work.

The_Deep

PoPLA may think that you are a liar, but a judge is more likely to believe you than well known scammers Parking eye. Read some of these.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=parking+eye+double+dipping&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=df70f9ecd1de4e2eb6a3a1f0d0bba376&PC=ACTS&sp=1&ghc=1&qs=AS&pq=parking+eye+double+dip&sc=2-22&cvid=df70f9ecd1de4e2eb6a3a1f0d0bba376&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

A witness statement was submitted, stating that the vehicle was elsewhere at approx. 15:30, also a mobile phone timeline, showing the driver driving and visiting shops elsewhere during the interim period, supported by receipts from the shops with time and debit card number. POPLA refuse to accept this and insist that the technology is "generally" accurate.

Wow, how on earth did POPLA reject your evidence of a double dip?

Show us the POPLA Decision wording please, putting in several paragraphs please...POPLA decisions are a horrible wall of words when copied, so divide it into paras so we can see the 'rational'(sic) of the 'irrational'.

DilH

Many thanks for your help. This has caused hours of work just compiling a defence and appealing to PE and POPLA. Guilty unless you can prove innocence! Here is POPLA's reply:

. Within the appellant’s response, he states the operator claims he remained in the car park from 14:08 until 17:46; however, he states he left after one hour and 22 minutes and returned after one hour and 51 minutes for 27 minutes.
“In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. [Me - "generally"?].
Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking.
On this occasion, the appellant has provided a witness statement, receipts and a mobile timeline; however, I do not consider the evidence sufficient to confirm the vehicle did not remain on site. The evidence provided, does not show the vehicle parked elsewhere during the times stated by the operator. Furthermore, the operator has provided an ANPR report, which shows only one entry and exit time, I am therefore satisfied the vehicle remained on site for three hours and 37 minutes.
[ Me: Are people expected to take a photo every time they park somewhere, just in case this happens? ]

Castle

DilH wrote: »

.
“In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. [Me - "generally"?].
]

I'm pretty sure that I have read that false statement before somewhere and the BPA stepped in and the got the decision overturned.

Redx

I am also sure that the BPA is aware that ANPR recording is not accurate as there is too much evidence that confirms these double dipping issues

2 shorts stays does not constitute one long stay

Umkomaas

Originally Posted by DilH View Post
.
“In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. [Me - "generally"?].

Unbelievable! This (obvious template) statement from POPLA was queried with the BPA (Steve Clark) in January by beccih1892 and he confirmed that the BPA do not audit ANPR systems and POPLA conceded the point. So why are they still using this when it is patently misleading and plain wrong? This is what Steve Clark said:

Hi, just another update - so as you will know I had an unsuccessful POPLA decision, I contacted Steve Clark from the BPA back in January regarding this. Well I've received a response from him today:

"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said "In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"

You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us. This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor’s comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says;
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.

Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.

This of course brings us onto the matter of your POPLA decision. As the Service is independent, it is not within my powers to compel POPLA to change their conclusion, and nor should that be the case - I am sure that the good people on MSE would support that position.

However if you believe that there is some doubt about the decision, I believe that I should do something to ensure that natural justice is served. I am pleased to report that Highview have agreed to cancel the PCN in this instance as a gesture of goodwill. I hope you agree that this is an appropriate resolution to your case

This is the link to beccih1892's thread - read from post #74 onwards.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5756819

You therefore now must complain to Steve Clark and ask him why, in view of the investigation he made and POPLA's acceptance that they were making a misleading statement, has this not been corrected - you believe that assessors have not been re-trained on this point and your POPLA appeal has been erroneously judged as a result.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

If you want us to look over your draft, flash it up here for critique.

EDIT TO ADD

I have noticed a one-word subtle change, that seems to have been put in - but in my view, not enough to prevent you making the complaint, you just need to phrase it slightly differently.

The phrase used in your case:

the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators

The phrase used in beccih1892's thread:

the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators

DilH

Many thanks again. I had obtained the details of the land owners and was going to complain to them, but your suggestion of contacting Steve Clark of BPA seems an excellent idea and so I'll try that and keep you informed.

DilH

To update, I emailed Steve Clark this evening and received an almost immediate reply that he would look into it. (and I believe he is on leave for a week - what an efficient and dedicated man!).