We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Machine out of order & miss-clicked location
Comments
-
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some may have connections to organised crime.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.
Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will should become Law next year.
All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
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.0 -
Oh gosh, you are correct! My bad, I was going off the word count in my document all along, silly me. I have now omitted some. How about the below?
Images on page 23 show if any driver were to stop for a lengthy period of time to try & decipher the illegible text on the signs provided, obstruction would be caused in the road. Furthermore, date of issue on all images is: ‘July 2017, Last updated 01/03/2018’ - SIX MONTHS PRIOR to the date in question.
NCP has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. Original appeal was filled in on behalf of the registered keeper, wording is beyond the registered keeper of the vehicles control.
Figure 6 clearly states the time in question and it is evident that the driver had full intention of paying, particularly at the out of order machine.
The driver did not 'choose' to pay via a mobile payment, rather they were left with no other option.
Page 11 - referring back to point 8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance. As seen once again, the time and date have been inserted into the above & below (but not part of) the images & are no more proof of evidence than hearsay. It merely provides the dates & times when the vehicle allegedly entered & exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking.
Inserting text of times & dates above images, 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.
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 NCP 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.0 -
It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.
Hopefully that wil take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, they are bending under the burden of complains against these scammers. Read this one I made earlier
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some may have connections to organised crime.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.
Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will should become Law next year.
All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Oh gosh, you are correct! My bad, I was going off the word count in my document all along, silly me. I have now omitted some. How about the below?
Images on page 23 show if any driver were to stop for a lengthy period of time to try & decipher the illegible text on the signs provided, obstruction would be caused in the road. Furthermore, date of issue on all images is: ‘July 2017, Last updated 01/03/2018’ - SIX MONTHS PRIOR to the date in question.
NCP has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. Original appeal was filled in on behalf of the registered keeper, wording is beyond the registered keeper of the vehicles control.
Figure 6 clearly states the time in question and it is evident that the driver had full intention of paying, particularly at the out of order machine.
The driver did not 'choose' to pay via a mobile payment, rather they were left with no other option.
Page 11 - referring back to point 8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance. As seen once again, the time and date have been inserted into the above & below (but not part of) the images & are no more proof of evidence than hearsay. It merely provides the dates & times when the vehicle allegedly entered & exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking.
Inserting text of times & dates above images, 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.
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 NCP 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.
I fear this one could be lost at POPLA, I don't see a clear argument POPLA will agree with.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for the replies.
Really, despite the times being inserted above the images etc and the images they are providing being six months out of date?
I just don't see how they are able to get away with simply writing the times and dates above an image, it would be no better than myself doing the same and issuing invoices for others.
The whole situation really does scream scam. I really do not want to do the whole court thing.0 -
The whole thing does indeed scream 'scam' but POPLA are very limited in what they consider. Some photos taken 6 months before WILL be accepted as proof of the signs, unless you can show differently...e.g. does GoogleStreetView cache show the signs nearer the time? That would be real evidence that the signs were not there.
I am certainly not telling you to pay but wanted to warn you what to expect so you don't go into a blind panic if they reject this appeal.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
GoogleStreetView isn't recent either although it does show the same signs not being there and changing over the years, all of which with none or less than that they are showing and again small text. At this point I can't upload any further images but do I mention this to show the inconsistency at least?
Thanks for your advice and help.0 -
Mention it but your hands are tied, as you say, it's not a time they will allow you to upload new images.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks will go ahead and do so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards