Machine out of order & miss-clicked location

breatheme

Stupidly rushed in to appealing (naively) thinking they would understand and was rejected. Have now received a letter for a payment of £60 within 14 days or full payment of £100 after from NCP.

I would be grateful for any help. I have spent the last 2 hours reading over the threads but am at a loss as to where to start as many templates don't seem relevant to my situation. I'm also unsure if I am supposed to be including these irrelevant parts anyway and what not to include other than who was the driver, although I can't seem to recall if the driver or keeper was selected in the initial appeal.

The driver would have paid at the machine but it was out of order and so the driver used the RingGo app on their phone instead - the details for which were already in the drivers phone. The driver genuinely thought they had clicked the correct car park on their phone at the time of paying (and even recall showing their partner) yet it appears they have miss-clicked the car park either side of it. The app is not too clear and reads as:

- This car park
- Regular car park
- This car park
- Regular car park

The driver has the receipt for the incorrect car park for which they were under the impression they had paid for this car park at the time they were in this car park and of course the PCN states the time and images. The driver also has a photo of the machine with the 'Out of order' sign on.

Google reviews for this car park are terrible so am hoping this may help? all rate it at 1 star bar one, stating things like:

- You can drive in and through this car park, no barriers, no tickets and you can get a £100 parking charge

- Local paper reporting Taxi being fined just for stopping to pick someone up

- All the machines are broken at this car park.1pm today. (7 months ago but can still recall)

The list goes on.

Where do I start with this? I don't have much time as I work for myself and have already fallen behind on work reading up. I also don't want to pay as I have 6 Birthdays and Christmas coming up.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Fruitcake

Did you get a PoPLA code with your rejection? If so, go to post 3 of the NEWBIES to construct a draft appeal using ALL the relevant points you will find there and post it here for checking before you submit it.

Put in non-PoFA compliant NTK anyway if you can't remember if the keeper gave away the driver's identity and let the assessor decide. To be on the safe side, amend your post above to only refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are of course two different people.

breatheme

Any advice? - keen to get this sent off.
Thank you!

breatheme

Forgot to say I do have a PoPLA code, yes.

breatheme

Can someone spare the time to review it please?

breatheme

I realise it's a very busy forum but is someone please able to give me some clarity as to whether this is ok to go ahead and submit to PoPLA? I don't have many days left

breatheme

Anyone? Last attempt before just going ahead and hoping for the best...

breatheme

Update:

I have had the following email from POPLA, however, when I log in the Operator Information and Evidence still says in progress. I know it says to contact them if you can't see but should I hold off a bit longer and should I actually contact them if I still can't see it..checking just in case! Thanks ahead for any help!

Dear XXX

Your parking charge appeal against NCP.
NCP has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by NCP.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.

If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by NCP such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

Yours Sincerely,
POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by NCP such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

Email POPLA...they even tell you this!

breatheme

Thank you. I can see that but with all the do's and don'ts I previously read on here before submitting my appeal, I just wanted to double check first. I thought better to be safe than sorry!

breatheme

No reply from POPLA but was able to read it eventually. I have a couple of days left to comment my 2000 characters.
I cannot copy and paste since the text in NCPs reply is embedded in images - I assume to deter myself from doing so. They have uploaded a 56 page response of text and images, including 7 divider pages:

Evidence checklist – 1 page
Case summary and rules/conditions – 6 pages
Parking charge notice and any notes – 2 pages
Registered keeper details and liability trail – 1 page
Original representations and notice of rejection – 5 pages
Images, plans etc – 20 pages
Other evidence – 14 pages

'The evidence within this pack will illustrate beyond doubt that a clear breach of contractual Terms and Conditions occurred and the PCN was in fact issued correctly.'
The motorist has appealed on the basis they the registered keeper of the vehicle received a letter dated...They contend that they, as the keeper, are not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1) There are no entrance or exit signs for both regular entrances/exits and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, disused barrier machines are still erect at entrance/exit point causing confusion.
2) Ticket machine was out of order with no signage or directions to alternative machines, furthermore there was no assistance provided in addition to negligence to provide public notice of broken machines prior to entrance.
3) Forced to pay via phone as a result of aforementioned in section 2, resulting in an error due to then lack of time caused by said machine being out of order causing confusion in haste. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice-non-compliance.
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
5) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
6) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
2
7) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
8) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance
9) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
10) Failure to Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
11) No Planning Permission from Cherwell District Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

The motorist was within the car park for 1 hour 39 minute and 9 seconds without payment therefore a Parking Charge Notice was issued for parked without payment. The motorist appealed their parking Charge Notice on 24/09/2018 stating they had paid by RingGo and it appears they mis clicked the car park. The appeal was declined on the basis payment was not made for the vehicle XXX to park at Banbury Marlborough Road therefore the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued.

They then go on to state and provide photographs of signage - a lot of which shows tiny text, ineligible from a car when driving in and out, as well as ticket machines, all of which dated July 2017, Last updated 01/03/2018 (six months prior to the date in question.) They also state records showing other payments via payment machine yet do not address the image uploaded in the appeal showing the out of order machine. Images uploaded by them again from the ANPR do not have any time stamp or date on the actual image.

I have written the following if anyone is please able to read over and check if there is anything I should remove or add? - Thank you in advance!

The images provided of the signage clearly all show illegible text. As stated, 'as required by the BPA COP. Clause "1.1: "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." Also referring back to point 10 in the original appeal "10. Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for" As seen in the images, you cannot easily read the text, nor is it of a consistent size throughout. Expecting drivers to be able to read such lengthy text, in such a small, illegible font size whilst driving is beyond unreasonable. Neither of which are reasonable, consistent and transparent as required.

Images on page 23 evidently show that if any driver were to stop for a lengthy period of time to try and decipher said illegible text, they would cause an obstruction in the road, causing danger to other passersby and vehicles. Furthermore, date of issue on all images is: ‘July 2017, Last updated 01/03/2018’ - SIX MONTHS PRIOR to the date in question. Images provided in the appeal from the keeper of the vehicle show up to date images of the machine out of order on the day in question, taken by the driver and evidently showing the ticket machine out of order with a sign stating so on it. Pointing back to Figure 4 in the original appeal, it is evident that National Car Parks Limited will go above and beyond in an attempt to issue PCNs to National Car Parks Ltd’s patrons, including the use of supplying incorrect and insufficient evidence as mentioned above.

Again, the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The original appeal was filled in on behalf of the registered keeper, by the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. How the appeal was worded is beyond the registered keeper of the vehicles control and this does not prove who the driver of the vehicle was at the time and date in question.

The RingGo payment receipt clearly states the time in question and it is evident that the driver had full intention of paying, particularly at the machine which was out of order and was left with no option other than to use a mobile phone - the driver made all efforts to pay, it is not like the driver left the car park knowingly having not paid or even attempting to not pay despite the machine being out of use.

Page 6 "...For the avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the "Pay By Mobile" service, the payment must be made at the time of parking in your vehicle in the Car Park and in any event, before you leave your vehicle in the Car Park." The driver did not 'choose' to pay via a mobile payment, rather they were left with no other option since nearby machines were out of order. Nonetheless, by viewing the RingGo receipt, it is evident the payment was made at the start of the period of time in question when the driver was under the impression they had paid for the period of time in question in full at the correct car park.

Page 6 "you must purchase a parking ticket from the ticket machines at the Car Park either with cash or a credit/debit card, before leaving your vehicle and ensure that the parking ticket is clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle" Again, had National Car Parks Ltd provided a working ticket machine as the driver intended to use, the driver would not have had to resort to paying on the phone via an app, again causing the driver to hurry in panic.

Page 11 - referring back to the original appeal of point 8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance. The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered." Here - as seen once again, the time and date have been inserted into the above and below (but not part of) the images and are no more proof of evidence than hearsay. It merely provides the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.

Referring again to point 9 in the original appeal. In this case, cars are freely able to drive through the car park without parking with the ANPR system in use, the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system.

To simply insert text of times and dates above images, again reinforces the point made in Figure 4 of the appeal where many patrons report receiving PCNs from National Car Parks Ltd at the Marlborough Road car park for simply driving through the car park and being penalised for doing so on many occasions.

To conclude, the PCN has been incorrectly issued - Vehicle Images contained in the PCN are noncompliant with the BPA Code of Practice and are a clear breach of policies; inserting times and dates as text above images is not factual evidence.
POPLA will find that National Car Parks Ltd have not provided and cannot provide sufficient evidence of date and time as mentioned above and therefore do not have reasonable grounds to issue said PCN. As the keeper of the vehicle, I trust that POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this PCN.