Machine wasn't working...Kind of
smd37
Forumite 4 Posts
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can help me with what to do next.
I parked in a Private Car Park in Margate. Appealed with them was rejected. POPLA appeal has just also been rejected.
Parked in the car park. Paid the £0.80. Put the partial registration number into the machine and the machines display screen saying it was necessary to immediately press a confirmation button. Therefore only partial registration number is shown on the ticket. I submitted this as evidence.
However the sign said full registration.
As the machine did not give me the option of putting in the full registration number, I didn’t and assumed the signs were incorrect.
I understand that if the machine isn’t working, you aren’t meant to park there. However as far as I was concerned it was working.
My argument was how am I supposed to know which is correct process when there is conflicting information?
Private Eye and Popla both said the signs said that the full registration needed to be entered therefore you should have put it in and declined the appeals. They barely said anything about the conflicting information or that they had checked that the machine was working, which is the whole basis of my argument.
POPLA reply –
As the appellant has appealed as the keeper of the vehicle, I must consider if the notice has been issued under the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Having reviewed the notice, I can see that it is fully compliant. I will therefore be considering the appellant’s liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions clearly state: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine/terminal”. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:51 and exiting at 15:48 after a stay of one hour and 57 minutes. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or for remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. I note the appellant’s comments that she purchased a ticket for 80 pence for two hours parking. She says that the notice on the machine said that she had to put in her full registration, however, she says that after pressing VA, a message telling her to press the button appeared on the screen. However, the signage is clear in that the full correct vehicle registration must be entered into the payment machine. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, as in not being able to enter their correct registration, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator or purchase another ticket with the correct details. If none of the payment machines were working, the site offers the motorist several other ways to pay; by phone, by text and on-line. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Having considered the signage, I am satisfied that it is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. In this case, the driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. I acknowledge the copy of the ticket the appellant has supplied, however, this does not exempt her from complying with the terms of parking. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. The appellant says that the operator has offered her a discounted payment amount, but as she says she has done nothing wrong, she has declined the offer. As the appeal has been refused, the amount due to the parking operator is now £100.
Any advice on how to move forward now?
Thanks in advance
I parked in a Private Car Park in Margate. Appealed with them was rejected. POPLA appeal has just also been rejected.
Parked in the car park. Paid the £0.80. Put the partial registration number into the machine and the machines display screen saying it was necessary to immediately press a confirmation button. Therefore only partial registration number is shown on the ticket. I submitted this as evidence.
However the sign said full registration.
As the machine did not give me the option of putting in the full registration number, I didn’t and assumed the signs were incorrect.
I understand that if the machine isn’t working, you aren’t meant to park there. However as far as I was concerned it was working.
My argument was how am I supposed to know which is correct process when there is conflicting information?
Private Eye and Popla both said the signs said that the full registration needed to be entered therefore you should have put it in and declined the appeals. They barely said anything about the conflicting information or that they had checked that the machine was working, which is the whole basis of my argument.
POPLA reply –
As the appellant has appealed as the keeper of the vehicle, I must consider if the notice has been issued under the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Having reviewed the notice, I can see that it is fully compliant. I will therefore be considering the appellant’s liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions clearly state: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine/terminal”. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:51 and exiting at 15:48 after a stay of one hour and 57 minutes. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or for remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. I note the appellant’s comments that she purchased a ticket for 80 pence for two hours parking. She says that the notice on the machine said that she had to put in her full registration, however, she says that after pressing VA, a message telling her to press the button appeared on the screen. However, the signage is clear in that the full correct vehicle registration must be entered into the payment machine. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, as in not being able to enter their correct registration, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator or purchase another ticket with the correct details. If none of the payment machines were working, the site offers the motorist several other ways to pay; by phone, by text and on-line. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Having considered the signage, I am satisfied that it is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. In this case, the driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. I acknowledge the copy of the ticket the appellant has supplied, however, this does not exempt her from complying with the terms of parking. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. The appellant says that the operator has offered her a discounted payment amount, but as she says she has done nothing wrong, she has declined the offer. As the appeal has been refused, the amount due to the parking operator is now £100.
Any advice on how to move forward now?
Thanks in advance
0
This discussion has been closed.
LATEST NEWS AND DEALS
Join the No Spend Days Challenge for December
Put yourself to the frugality test
See the Forum discussion
Replies
This is a scam, and you have been hooked by the nastiest of them all Parking Eye (not Private Eye).
You need to read the newbies thread at the top of this forum to get clued up, we don't advise paying scammers, and even though you lost at POPLA there is no compulsion to pay.
But if the land owner has given Parking lie the OK to take court action then they may try and they are the most litigious of them all.
But this is winnable with the forum help, some judges are up to speed with this scam and throw these claims out.
If you start getting debt collectors letters then these can be ignored and it's a sign PE won't take court action.
Do you still have the machine ticket ?
Whatever happened then to your 80p ???
We expect this scam from Parking Eye as they are BPA
members who fail to keep their members in check.
POPLA, set up by the BPA has now become a white elephant
and destined for the rubbish tip.
Their assessors are "jobs worth" types who unless hard pressed
side with the parking company.
I would ask PE about that 80p, you do not want a refund.
Then there is the machine which should tally each day
the monies taken and the vehicles allowed.
One would imagine this machine will show an overpayment
of the vehicles leaving and for you, it will be one less
To retain your money and then issue a PCN is fraud and
you have every right to request the stats of the machine
and that should show even a part registration entered
Put it to PE that you want proof of what happened to the
80p and if they will not provide proof, you will ask a court
to instruct them to do so.
Request they cancel this immediately
These machines are known to be dodgy and especially
the PE ANPR as confirmed by the BPA.
PE must account for themselves and machine. The courts
are fed up with such petty claims which wastes the courts
time
Again POPLA missed the obvious ?
GOOD, so what are you waiting for, do as said above
Search the forum for rectification notice VRN
Tell PE in your privacy concern submission (headed up RECTIFICATION NOTICE - INACCURATE DATA CAUSED BY PDT MACHINE - PCN XXXXX/XXXXX) you will complain to the Information Commissioner if they refuse your rectification notice, and tell them whilst this is investigated (including you ICO complaint that will follow any refusal) they must put any litigation on hold, and mark the file that you object to the continued unjustified and disproportionate processing of the 'inaccurate data' to a driver's detriment, and for profit purely to punish drivers, when they already hold the accurate VRN data.
Please read threads, there are several this past month, already written about this EXACT situation.
Finally, once you've submitted the rectification notice, go back to that car park ON FOOT (don't drive in) and stroll to the PDT machine and start to put your VRN in, and film the screen.
That's your evidence that the machine created the data error, not you, and when PE try to sue over this (if they jump through the ICO complaint which I am not sure that they will) that evidence will be dynamite for you Witness Statement.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD