RINGGO Text Bug and Expired POPLA Code

EllGeeAitch

Hello, I recently received a Parking Charge Notice.
I appealed the Charge with Smart Parking on the grounds that I had paid and that the "Text to Pay" RINGGO use will remove any characters after a space as it used spaces to separate the fields you need to enter which wasn't clear when sending the text. As such the XX## XXX became XX##. I have had this verified by RINGGO and will be pestering them to update their text to pay method as it's inconsistent with their app and online paying methods which will not drop the string after a space.
They then claimed I overstayed the parking terms, as I was there for 3 hours 11 minutes and had paid for 3 hours.
Unfortunately, after the initial rejection, I didn't appeal to POPLA in time. (I have submitted a request to submit a late appeal on the grounds that I had moved properties and as such the rejection of the appeal was submitted to my previous address). I do have a letter from the Debt Collectors stating that they had to track me down using other means.
I had forgotten to update my car registration documents but I have done so now.

I currently have 8 days left to pay the debt collectors before they recommend legal action be taken to recover the losses. I am going to submit a further appeal to SP stating that 11 minutes is well within the grace periods laid out in section 13 of the BPA and provide further evidence of the phone calls made prior to the text to pay service in which the voice recognition did not work.

My questions are as follows; if I do not pay the debt collection agency by the 20th of September, will my credit score be affected?

If POPLA reject my late appeal request and SP reject my appeal, will I be taken to court based on the circumstances I've laid out above?

Will I continue to receive debt collection letters as my partner and I are getting incredibly stressed out about them and should I respond to the debt collectors?

What should I include in my next reply to SP other than a reminder of Section 13 and proof that I wasted 6 minutes of my life attempting to get their voice recognition to function correctly?

Thanks for your time and I appreciate any replies!

Redx

no , debt collectors cannot enforce and cannot take this to court

read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread about credit ratings, you have to go to court, lose, then not pay the CCJ within 28 days before enforcement can take place, plus its only then that the credit score is affected (due to non-payment of the CCJ within one month) - so NO, your credit score wont be affected and DEBT COLLECTORS can be ignored (see post #4 of the NEWBIES thread)

debt collector letters are likely to continue for a long time

the PPC has 6 years to issue a court claim using MCOL

nothing you say to a PPC is likely to get them to change their minds, its just wasted effort, but do so if you feel you must

EllGeeAitch

Thanks, I did read the sticky thread but I must admit I got lost in the level of detail, I'll go and read the relevant sections again.
So to summarise, I should ignore all debt recovery letters (I'll obviously keep them all) and nothing legally will happen unless I am taken to court and lose, a process which I feel is never going to happen due to the fact that I have attempted to pay and haven't overstayed as per the grace period clause.

beamerguy

EllGeeAitch wrote: »

Hello,

I currently have 8 days left to pay the debt collectors before they recommend legal action be taken to recover the losses. I am going to submit a further appeal to SP stating that 11 minutes is well within the grace periods laid out in section 13 of the BPA and provide further evidence of the phone calls made prior to the text to pay service in which the voice recognition did not work.

My questions are as follows; if I do not pay the debt collection agency by the 20th of September, will my credit score be affected?

Thanks for your time and I appreciate any replies!

You don't listen to !!!!!! debt collectors, they are
the biggest load of rubbish around who lie and are
100% powerless

YOU DO NOT PAY DEBT COLLECTORS WHO ARE ON;Y
MONEY SCAMMERS AND CANNOT TAKE YOU TO COURT

NO AFFECT WHATSOEVER on your credit rating

Has to go to court first and only if you lost and did
not pay

READ THIS CAREFULLY
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74763610#Comment_74763610

Redx

yes , apart from the last part

SMART have 6 years to try a court claim, which they may do

if you lose , you pay up , promptly

if they lose, claim back £95 in costs etc

if it gets past the 6 year mark, its statute barred

meanwhile , IGNORE the debt collector letters

come back if you get a formal LBC or an MCOL within 6 years

keep all paperwork and any proof of payment etc, in a file or binder

EllGeeAitch

Thanks both for the replies. I have kept all correspondence and all evidence I have is currently stored online, I'll print it off as well.
So finally, I should try the reply as I feel I need to, ignore the debt collectors letters but keep them and only come back and contact you guys if a court summons is brought against me.
Did I read that only 8000 cases had gone to court whereas 56 million parking charge notices had been issues?

Quentin

Sending appeals now is futile. They won't be interested in your appeal but by doing so they will realise you are now taking notice and will encourage them to increase the pressure

Redx

you will not receive a "summons" as this is not a criminal offence


as I said earlier, its an MCOL that you may receive (from the Northampton CCBC civil service office) , a small claim issued for the small claims court at your local county court


the current figure is aomewhere between 5 and 7 million private pcn,s per annum and maybe up to 50 thousand court claims per annum

EllGeeAitch

As an update to this ongoing saga, I replied to them several more times demanding a new POPLA code and they have finally given me one! So now I need to get this overturned there.

Coupon-mad

OK, show us the draft POPLA appeal after reading a load of recent examples.

EllGeeAitch

Hi all, I've put together my first draft of my POPLA appeal.
I fear I may have made a stupid mistake in identifying myself as the driver in earlier correspondence but I thought I would try 4 anyway.
Your help and feedback is much appreciated, I still have 7 days to submit this case but would like to submit on Friday.
Are there any other grounds for argument or things I should throw at them?#
I have been unable to get back to the car park to take photos of the signage as it is a long way from my home.

Dear POPLA Assessor,
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE ##
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated DD/MM/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Smart Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator and rejected via a letter dated DD/MM/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. I have paid for parking - Proof of payment
2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
3. Smart Parking has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

1) Proof Of Payment
Firstly – payment for three hours of parking was made as evidenced in a screenshot of a bank account below:

This can be backed up by a further screenshot of the RINGGO account below:

Two things are amiss here, firstly, the vehicle registration recorded by RINGGO is XX11, not the XX11 XXX entered via text message when setting up a new registration to pay for the parking of.
Secondly, the time is 11:17. This is due to the voice recognition software employed by RINGGO being unable to recognise the letters and numbers read out. This happened three times as can be seen in the mobile phone records below:

As the voice recognition had failed to interpret the number plate read out three times, wasting seven minutes of time, the user was prompted to send the details via text.
The software that reads the text message uses the spaces in the text message to denote a new field, thus any text entered after a space in the text message will form part of the next field or, will be lost completely and truncated from the string.
This is not made clear in the text message, nor is it obvious that the user should not enter the space which is clearly present on every standard UK number plate. Thus the XX11 XXX entered in the text message has only been recorded as XX11.
This is contradictory to how the software throughout the rest of the RINGGO app and website work. Entering a space in a number plate when filling out a web form or app form will not cause the data to be lost, a clear software issue.
I work in software as a Software Test Analyst which makes me an expert in this area.
2) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
Some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”(Link to evidence removed for this post)
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum -a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, 10 minutes is the minimum required grace period, I call upon Smart Parking to show the full unredacted contract of their parking arrangement including what their grace period is.

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
I require an underacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
I do not believe that the contract allows Smart Parking to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.
There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. ''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''