Multiple PCNs at POPLA stage

FalconA

Please help... I received multiple PCNs from different car parks within a short space of time, totally depressed about that hence the reason for leaving it so late. I need to apply to POPLA within the next few days. I know, silly! I spent hours reading other threads and they shed some light but I still don't know on what basis I should apply. But to the point.

1. The driver parked in an NCP car park and used text message method to pay, however, there was an error within the text message and the payment was not accepted by the system. The driver used this method again, each time copying the same message, until the first Parking Charge Notice arrived to the Keeper 10 days later. It was a genuine mistake and the Driver never gets any confirmation text messages anyway.

1.1 PCN appealed, foolishly identifying the driver, explaining the situation (so naive), appeal rejected, POPLA code issued.

Qa: Is there a point for not identifying the Driver at POPLA stage if it was identified already? I think no point but wanted to double check.

Qb: The car park has a really bad signage. There is one board on the left hand side to what can be assumed is an entry to the car park. There is a sign on the fence saying 'Welcome to xxx car park on the left of the road leading to the car park, no 'Entry' or 'Exit' marks provided. Then on the same fence there is a board stating the charges for not paying, and the letters are in what seems to be a reasonable font, except that it is to the side of the assumed entrance and not fit for purpose of reading it while driving and manoeuvring into the road leading into the actual car park. There is another board good 3 meters to the side of the exit, which is obstructed by the cars parked there and with tiny letters and hung well above the eye level. The car park is about 100m long and there is only 1 more board in the middle to the side - definitely not visible from every place within the car park. At the moment I think this is my best ground for appeal.

So, when selecting the reason, do I say is due to bad signage? Do I send them the photos or it’s up to them to prove it is correct signage?

Qc. Do I add explanation that the Driver thought that they paid - I have screenshot of the messages sent from the Driver’s phone (although they show the message was incorrect)

Qd. The PCN was issued for the following reason: “breach of the car park T&Cs of use: Failing to make payment upon exit from ANPR controlled car park.” And the time is stated later. However, on the board in the car park it states that “you need to pay before the next 04:29 after you leave the car park.”

Am I correct that in fact the driver was not at breach of their T&Cs at the time they stated thus making this PCN invalid?

Qe. The PCN stated the reason for issue as above, however, the rejection letter reads “we have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds; The Automatic Number Plate Recognition service has recorded that the parking session for your vehicle was not paid for within the stipulated time.”

Is it important at all?

Qf. On a couple of the rejection letters it states that “Please be advised that if text message payment has gone through successfully you will receive confirmation via text message. If this confirmation is not received, then the payment has not gone through and the payment would need to be made manually. “

This is not true as the Driver never receives any text messages when the payment is successful, neither before or after the alleged breach.

Qg. There is no time of parking stated on the PCN, it only says what time the exit was made. (The photos in the evidence on the website have a black strap under them with time of entry and exit but nothing on the PCN).
Qh. The car park is a private property managed on behalf of London Underground by NCP, with the authority of the landowner. Can I do anything with this info? Request a copy of the authorisation through POPLA? Complain to London Underground?

Qi. Is there anything else I missed? Like the charge not appropriate for the loses?




1.2. The Keeper appealed through NCP’s online form with the standard template from the forum (the Keeper is learning on their mistakes) and received the following response:

“Unfortunately we are unable to progress your appeal further at present, as you are a third party making the appeal on behalf of the driver.

Like many other business sectors, due to conditions imposed by the Data Protection Act we are prevented from disclosing or discussing information or issues with a third party such as yourself concerning an individual driver relating to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice

We can however progress an appeal once we are in receipt of signed and dated written consent from the driver of the vehicle at the time of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice giving you full authority to act on their behalf and to receive any relevant information or data relating to them .

You will appreciate the disclosure, discussion or exchange of information or data relating to an individual is a very sensitive issue these days and as such should not be divulged or discussed unless express consent by that individual is given. We look forward to receiving such consent by return enabling us to progress this particular appeal for review and action.

If you are unable to divulge the above information, payment of £60.00 for the above notice can be made by one of the options below. ……” No POPLA code provided.


Qj. What does the keeper actually do with this one now? The appeal did say “….as the keeper of the vehicle” and on the PCN says that the keeper can make representations.




2. This case is a Penalty Charge notice, a council car park, ticket on the windscreen. The Driver parked before 9am, however, it was not possible to make a payment before 9.00 (none of the methods provided). The driver tried. On the ticket machine it says ‘No charge parking period’ and on the Ringgo it says “Error. Parking restrictions prohibit payment at this time”. Not sure what the message is on the phone but they admitted in the rejection letter that the payment cannot be made before 9am.

Appeal through the online form sent, the driver disclosed (not sure not disclosing the driver still applies to Penalty CN?) and the appeal was rejected.

The rejection reads that the driver was required to display the valid ticket or the driver was “also able to pay to park by phone or online; however, the CEO’s handheld computer showed no valid period bought by phone or online.

Although the driver tried to pay by phone or online, the payment did not go through as the car park operational hours were not in force at the time. The car park operation hours are from 9am to 5pm, therefore the driver cannot make payment prior to the operation hours. It is unfortunate this happened with the driver, but drivers can only park if the transaction is successful.”


This is a station car park and council knows that drivers park there and get on the tube where there is no reception. This is a clear scam to me aimed at collecting money.

2.1. The driver didn’t pay after 9am.

Qk. Do the same rules apply for making an appeal for “Penalty Charge Notice” as for “Parking CN? There is a lot of talk around private car parks but I didn’t find anything that would tell me about Penalty Charge Notices.


Ql. Shall I include in the appeal that MPs said that drivers should be able to park to get to work, etc. (I found a blog about MPs comments about that.)

Qm. Shall I just pay this one?

Qn. Do I now just have to wait for Notice to owner to make a formal appeal?



2.2. The driver actually paid for the car park as soon as they had reception again, however, it turned out that it was few minutes too late. So, they both received the payment for the correct amount (still, the driver paid the sum requested as for the whole day.)

Qo. Can I request the refund if I loose the appeal? Or shall I claim that they were not at loss?


I better stop here before running out of the alphabet. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you require any photos, etc.

Many thanks for reading.

Coupon-mad

I need to apply to POPLA within the next few days

POPLA codes last 32 days (not the 28 days that POPLA say).

But you said that NCP didn't allow you to appeal and:

No POPLA code provided.

So you are not at POPLA stage at all then!

I better stop here before running out of the alphabet

LOL! Well you win the prize for the most questions in one post(!), but I will try:

Qa: Is there a point for not identifying the Driver at POPLA stage if it was identified already? I think no point but wanted to double check.

No, but you could try a point saying that this is byelaws-covered land, and NCP's sign says in the small print that they are acting under LU railway byelaws (and indeed any signs placed on TFL byelaws land about parking are only there under that excuse, to communicate the byelaws):

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

...and the byelaws say only the OWNER of the car can be held liable:

14 (4) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of any of Byelaws 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

There is no reasonable presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle is also the 'owner', which in many instances can be a finance company, or a lease firm, hire company, or other body or person, even a family member can often be the owner but not the keeper. So you can put NCP to strict proof that they have established the identity of the owner.

Qb: The car park has a really bad signage. There is one board on the left hand side to what can be assumed is an entry to the car park. There is a sign on the fence saying 'Welcome to xxx car park on the left of the road leading to the car park, no 'Entry' or 'Exit' marks provided.

Then on the same fence there is a board stating the charges for not paying, and the letters are in what seems to be a reasonable font, except that it is to the side of the assumed entrance and not fit for purpose of reading it while driving and manoeuvring into the road leading into the actual car park.

There is another board good 3 meters to the side of the exit, which is obstructed by the cars parked there and with tiny letters and hung well above the eye level. The car park is about 100m long and there is only 1 more board in the middle to the side - definitely not visible from every place within the car park. At the moment I think this is my best ground for appeal.

OK, especially if you can take some blurry/damning photos!

So, when selecting the reason, do I say is due to bad signage? Do I send them the photos or it’s up to them to prove it is correct signage?

'OTHER'. The NEWBIES thread tells you that! You have more points than signage so 'OTHER' is best for all POPLA cases, and here we then add a few words saying that your appeal is in the attached PDF uploaded (and make sure it DOES upload, and shows a little 'bin' icon (weird but that's how it looks).

More important I think, is the term you noticed that effectively makes void, any PCN issued on the spot, as you could have paid up to 04.29 the next morning and could not possibly get an 'instant ticket' at that location, before 04.29am!

And therefore, you didn't breach the terms on the sign, even if it had been legible.

Qc. Do I add explanation that the Driver thought that they paid - I have screenshot of the messages sent from the Driver’s phone (although they show the message was incorrect)

In what way were they 'incorrect' please? Do you just mean the payments bounced due to trying to pay before 9am? Or did you also make an error in the VRN or location code or something?

Qd. The PCN was issued for the following reason: “breach of the car park T&Cs of use: Failing to make payment upon exit from ANPR controlled car park.” And the time is stated later. However, on the board in the car park it states that “you need to pay before the next 04:29 after you leave the car park.”

Am I correct that in fact the driver was not at breach of their T&Cs at the time they stated thus making this PCN invalid?

That does sound worth a point on its own, yes! I LIKE YOUR THINKING!

Especially if you embed a close-up zoomed/cropped photo of those words on the sign and say even if you had then gone home and paid, the PCN was never correctly given as it was premature, given the term about being allowed to pay ''before the next 04:29 after you leave the car park'' and it seems the ticketer doesn't know their own t&cs as displayed. It would be different if they issued a PCN by post a week or so later, but due to the wording of that term, surely a windscreen PCN cannot be 'properly issued' at this site...ever.

Nice one. Can you show us that term on the sign, please? Could be useful for other LU cases. Please show us a link to the image of the sign, hosted in Dropbox (change HTTP to HXXP as you can't post working links - PLEASE READ WHAT I SAID THERE, NO COMING BACK WASTING TIME - LIKE SOME PEOPLE DO - SAYING YOU CAN'T POST LINKS!).

Qe. The PCN stated the reason for issue as above, however, the rejection letter reads “we have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds; The Automatic Number Plate Recognition service has recorded that the parking session for your vehicle was not paid for within the stipulated time.”

Is it important at all?

Yes, I would add that observation to the point above, and say clearly it was contemplated that only ANPR PCNs could be issued (probably due to that term allowing payment after leaving). It seems NCP has in its haste to issue more PCNs, forgotten that their own terms prevent them from issuing windscreen PCNs on the same day!

Qf. On a couple of the rejection letters it states that “Please be advised that if text message payment has gone through successfully you will receive confirmation via text message. If this confirmation is not received, then the payment has not gone through and the payment would need to be made manually. “

This is not true as the Driver never receives any text messages when the payment is successful, neither before or after the alleged breach.

OK, so you can state that in another point, and say you cannot possibly prove a negative but what they have said is not true, and if they disagree they must prove the existence of these 'confirmation texts'.

Qg. There is no time of parking stated on the PCN, it only says what time the exit was made. (The photos in the evidence on the website have a black strap under them with time of entry and exit but nothing on the PCN).

If the PCN only says what time the car exited, how can it have been applied to the windscreen, I can't understand this? Please explain as you are adamant this was a windscreen PCN and surely the person who issued it must have written or typed something about the time on it? If not, then scan it and embed that scan into your POPLA appeal document and point out that the PCN was not properly given due to the omission of any time; there is no period of parking or 'time issued'.

Qh. The car park is a private property managed on behalf of London Underground by NCP, with the authority of the landowner. Can I do anything with this info? Request a copy of the authorisation through POPLA? Complain to London Underground?

Yes you need to use the standard appeal template point about no landowner authority, and remind POPLA that NCP can only act within the authority of TFL/London Underground byelaws. Clearly it was the intention of LU that drivers whose phone app had failed, or couldn't get a signal, or even forgot to pay or were in a hurry to catch a train, could pay at home after leaving.

Thus there can be NO authority for instant tickets on the day.

Qi. Is there anything else I missed? Like the charge not appropriate for the loses?

NEVER EVER mention 'no loss'. The Beavis case killed that argument.

“Unfortunately we are unable to progress your appeal further at present, as you are a third party making the appeal on behalf of the driver.''

No POPLA code provided.

Qj. What does the keeper actually do with this one now? The appeal did say “….as the keeper of the vehicle” and on the PCN says that the keeper can make representations.

OK so wait for the NTK and appeal as keeper then.

Sounds like you have not blabbed about who was driver, or owner? GOOD.

2. This case is a Penalty Charge notice, a council car park, ticket on the windscreen.

No it is not. Check it again. NCP do not issue 'PENALTY charge notices' (do they?). Please confirm, in case they've changed it.

The Driver parked before 9am, however, it was not possible to make a payment before 9.00 (none of the methods provided). The driver tried.

On the ticket machine it says ‘No charge parking period’ and on the Ringgo it says “Error. Parking restrictions prohibit payment at this time”. Not sure what the message is on the phone but they admitted in the rejection letter that the payment cannot be made before 9am.

Appeal through the online form sent, the driver disclosed (not sure not disclosing the driver still applies to Penalty CN?) and the appeal was rejected.

The rejection reads that the driver was required to display the valid ticket or the driver was:

“also able to pay to park by phone or online; however, the CEO’s handheld computer showed no valid period bought by phone or online.

Although the driver tried to pay by phone or online, the payment did not go through as the car park operational hours were not in force at the time. The car park operation hours are from 9am to 5pm, therefore the driver cannot make payment prior to the operation hours. It is unfortunate this happened with the driver, but drivers can only park if the transaction is successful.”

This is a station car park and council knows that drivers park there and get on the tube where there is no reception. This is a clear scam to me aimed at collecting money.

2.1. The driver didn’t pay after 9am.

Qk. Do the same rules apply for making an appeal for “Penalty Charge Notice” as for “Parking CN? There is a lot of talk around private car parks but I didn’t find anything that would tell me about Penalty Charge Notices.

Are you SURE this is a PENALTY Charge Notice?

Those rules sound absolutely ludicrous! Sets people up to fail and makes it even more clear why it cannot have been in the contemplation of LU that instant tickets can be issued, because a person cannot be penalised for not paying when the system didn't let them, then going to get a train. Especially given the term allowing drivers to make payment up to 04.29 the next day after LEAVING.

We do need to see that signage term, please.

Ql. Shall I include in the appeal that MPs said that drivers should be able to park to get to work, etc. (I found a blog about MPs comments about that.)

No.

Qm. Shall I just pay this one?

No. An absolute scam, this one!

Qn. Do I now just have to wait for Notice to owner to make a formal appeal?

No, that's a Council document.

You should wait for the NTK and you will have plenty of time.

2.2. The driver actually paid for the car park as soon as they had reception again, however, it turned out that it was few minutes too late. So, they both received the payment for the correct amount (still, the driver paid the sum requested as for the whole day.)

Qo. Can I request the refund if I loose the appeal? Or shall I claim that they were not at loss?

When you say 'a few minutes too late' do you mean after 04.29am?

The only thing that strikes me is, could the PCN you got on say, a Tuesday, be a penalty for not paying for Monday's parking?

FalconA

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks a million for reading through my essay and replying to the questions, I know it was a mundane task. It's greatly appreciated.

To clarify some points, these were PCNs from two different car parks:
Case 1 - several NCP parking charge notices sent to the keeper by post (NOT windscreen), these have been issued from ANPR.

The error from the payment was that the instructions said "Please text PARK [location] [time]" and the driver sent the text message that read just "[location] [time]". The system did not accept it. The text message confirmation only sent to drivers who registered for this for extra charge. However, their rejection letter said they always send it – which is not true.

On the PCN it says: "...vehicle was involved in the following breach of the car parks terms and conditions of use: Failing to make payment upon exit from an ANPR Approved Device controlled car park. The contractual T&Cs are signposted in the car park. The above incident took place in NCP car park: [location] 01/01/2018 at 16:25."*

* I changed the date and time above.

For this one T&Cs in the car park say you can pay before 4:29 the next morning. Now, as the keeper received several of those, on some they blabbed out the driver's name and on some they didn't.

Re: 1.1 Where the Keeper did say the Driver's name, they now have to submit an appeal to POPLA very soon. I think I understood all your points above, so I will draft something now. I
The Keeper have POPLA code (these are my questions QA-Qi)

Re:1.2. In one case the Keeper did not say the Driver's name and challenged it as a KEEPER. NCP replied they cannot talk to the keeper - because of GDPR they cannot speak to a third party (which is weird because they contacted the keeper in the first place and asked to pay or challenge PCN). They didn't provide POPLA code in this case and asked for the driver's details to proceed . It was already "ANPR Postal Notice to Keeper. (my Qj)" - so I'm not sure if I should write again to them or wait for something else. Here is a copy of their reply:

"Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Unfortunately we are unable to progress your appeal further at present, as you are a third party making the appeal on behalf of the driver.
Like many other business sectors, due to conditions imposed by the Data Protection Act we are prevented from disclosing or discussing information or issues with a third party such as yourself concerning an individual driver relating to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice .
We can however progress an appeal once we are in receipt of signed and dated written consent from the driver of the vehicle at the time of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice giving you full authority to act on their behalf and to receive any relevant information or data relating to them .
You will appreciate the disclosure, discussion or exchange of information or data relating to an individual is a very sensitive issue these days and as such should not be divulged or discussed unless express consent by that individual is given. We look forward to receiving such consent by return enabling us to progress this particular appeal for review and action.
If you are unable to divulge the above information, payment of £60.00 for the above notice can be made by one of the options below." and then the payment options follow.

For this appeal the standard appeal template was used where it said that the appeal is made as the Keeper of the vehicle. I think they missed it.


Case 2: I also received council's PCN which is 'Penalty Charge Notice' (my Qk-Qo) This is the case where they don't let you pay before 9am, even on the app, and then fine you if you get on the tube and pay an hour later. This one was PCN on the windscreen. Issued to the driver shortly after 9am, while the driver was still underground.

Are you SURE this is a PENALTY Charge Notice?

Those rules sound absolutely ludicrous! Sets people up to fail and makes it even more clear why it cannot have been in the contemplation of LU that instant tickets can be issued, because a person cannot be penalised for not paying when the system didn't let them, then going to get a train. Especially given the term allowing drivers to make payment up to 04.29 the next day after LEAVING.

We do need to see that signage term, please.

Yes, it's penalty charge notice, windscreen applied around 9.30am. This is my Case 2 where you have no possibility of paying before 9 because the system doesn't accept the payments. See photos. (Paying before 4:29 is for the other car park)

When you say 'a few minutes too late' do you mean after 04.29am?

I meant a few minutes after 9am, for example 9:30am while the driver is still underground. This is my Case 2.

The only thing that strikes me is, could the PCN you got on say, a Tuesday, be a penalty for not paying for Monday's parking?

So, this is interesting one and it comes down to the point that you have till 4:29 next morning to pay.
I'm going to use fake times here of course but it will be easier to work on an example.

Driver John parked his car on Monday 6th December at 11:00 and left the car park at 17:00. The T&Cs read he has time until 4:29 on Tuesday 7th December to pay the charge for his parking. The PCN, however, stated that it was issued for 'Failing to make payment upon exit. The above incident took place on 6th December at 17:00."

My point on this one is that the breach of T&Cs happens only at 4:30 on 7th December in this case. So, even though the ticket was issued via post a week later it is still void as the payment DOES NOT need to be made upon exit. Correct?

For the ticket to be valid they would have to say that "The Automatic Number Plate Recognition service has recorded that the parking session for your vehicle was not paid for within the stipulated time." - they used this term in the rejection letter but not on the PCN.

I'm really sorry for this whole being so long and confusing. I now see I should've made two separate posts to avoid confusion. :-( Fingers crossed we will sort it out somehow :-)

The photos
hxxx://
www.
dropbox.
com/sh/mtqasiirpk3ikb8/AAAygILRgZm_ggWB7AYKFTmTa?dl=0

I'm sorry but changing to xx still won't let me post and I had to chop it in pieces.

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mtqasiirpk3ikb8/AAAygILRgZm_ggWB7AYKFTmTa?dl=0

Take the Council one to pepipoo forum, and they will help because the situation is ludicrous if they stop people from paying then expect them to pay while underground (NO HOTMAIL EMAILS ALLOWED!):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

And the NCP ones, take them all to POPLA. The one where you have been refused the right to appeal as keeper, wait for the Notice to Keeper to arrive the next month then repeat the NEWBIES thread appeal to get the POPLA code.

FalconA

Thanks so much again! I will appeal now and let you know how it goes :-)

FalconA

And the NCP ones, take them all to POPLA. The one where you have been refused the right to appeal as keeper, wait for the Notice to Keeper to arrive the next month then repeat the NEWBIES thread appeal to get the POPLA code.

I have one more question, just clarification really.

I sent an appeal as a keeper using the standard template (basically stating that I am a keeper), and NCP replied

"Unfortunately we are unable to progress your appeal further at present, as you are a third party making the appeal on behalf of the driver ... We can however progress an appeal once we are in receipt of signed and dated written consent from the driver of the vehicle at the time of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice giving you full authority to act on their behalf and to receive any relevant information or data relating to them"

You said I need to wait for Notice to Keeper, however, I thought that what I had already received was Notice to Keeper (I uploaded a photo in the dropbox). Are they going to send another one then? Thanks

Umkomaas

Complain to the BPA (and copy in the DVLA) that NCP are distorting the process.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote 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 of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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 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.

Coupon-mad

Definitely complain and also email NCP back and clarify:

''I was not appealing on behalf of the driver, I was appealing as registered keeper, as is my right. Schedule 4 was only enacted in late 2012 once the BPA had put in place a mechanism for KEEPERS to appeal, and your company knows this very well.

I have complained to Steve Clark at the BPA and you will be hearing from him so I suggest you reject & issue my POPLA codes sharpish for each and every PCN and stop acting like the worst of the rogue PPCs Parliament named and shamed. You do yourself no favours with your refusal to consider an appeal from a keeper and should be ashamed of your disingenuous conduct.''

FalconA

Thank you Umkomass, will do.

The Deep, yes, it is outrageous. I will definitely write to my MP separately.

Coupon-mad, this sounds ace! Thanks a lot.

FalconA

Received POPLA code from NCP within 24 hrs of emailing Steve at the BPA, thank you :-)

For the case where POPLA code was issued, the keeper submitted POPLA appeal and NCP submitted their evidence. I have uploaded some screenshots to the dropbox, created new folder in Case 1- NCP evidence.

1. NCP submitted a copy of full contract between NCP and London Underground - 180 pages. (submitted it 3 times for one case, haha). The contract, however, looks like just a template. Apart from the both companies full names and addresses, there is no single signature on the document. Also the document is not dated - where there is a space for a date, the space is blank (except for a year, which is a year of the draft of contract). I have uploaded screenshots of those to dropbox, please let me know if I should upload the full document. There is also Contract Menu which is dated Aug 2013 and due for review Aug 2018 (so it should've been reviewed 2 months ago), not sure it's relevant.

2. NCP submitted images from ANPR, where there is a picture of the vehicle and date/time is on the black strap under the image. For exit the picture is completely black (and no timing under), with only registration plate visible. Then there is a second image of exit with the black strap with date and time under - that image looks like taken in the daylight, which could be taken from another day? Is it possible they have a technology where images taken at night look so clear as daylight? I believe it's not possible... I am concerned they have made it up and took photo of the car from another day, especially considering point 3 below.

3. NCP submitted images of signage... which is old and not up to date. One image is of a sign from a totally different location!!!! as there is no such building in the background of current signs (the image seems to be on a post and current signs are on the fence with the station in the background). I uploaded their photo and my screenshot from google map. I can't believe it! Another images they submitted are old, too. They have old T&C, for example it states that the driver has until midnight to pay for the car park and on another one it reads the driver has until 2.59 to pay. The current sign actually reads it's until 4.29 the next day - 3 different T&C, which ones are valid? And the last but not least, the charge for non-payment on their image is in tiny font, which is great for this case

4. They submitted evidence of non-payment which is a screenshot of the payments a driver made before / after the alleged incident. Can the keeper ask for this to be dismissed as there are other payment methods available and one of them could have been used?

5. They submitted T&C of cashless payments, which is a third party operator, and implied it should have been ticked when applying for cashless payments, however, those are T&Cs of that company not the car park. Can I ask for this part of evidence to be ignored?

6. They submitted a screenshot of NCP website with a link to T&Cs in the footer. The driver, however, has not used the website and T&Cs should be in the car park, can I ask for this evidence to be ignored?

Now, the more difficult bit.

7. They submitted a copy of the driver's mobile screenshot, where the driver attempted to make a payment but entered text message with an error as evidence that the payment was not made. Plus they brought up the fact that the driver said in the initial appeal that they are sorry they made and error and payment didn't go through, etc. - shall I just ignore this bit and not comment? After all the driver was not aware that the charge for non-payment would be so high as the signs are not clear?

8. They also said it was the driver's responsibility to go to the other board (payment machines and a board with payment methods are almost 2 meters away from a board with T&Cs) and read T&Cs with tiny fonts before parking.

9. In their (template of) contract LUL expects NCP to send a letter giving an opportunity to rectify an error if this is a first offence. Nothing like this happen but can this comment be included or would it be extra evidence now?

10. I still believe PCN is void as it was issued for non-payment on exit but T&Cs say the payment can be made until 4:29 am the next day. Plus there is no parking period on PCN, only entry and exit times.

Could you please tell me if I am right in the above points and the keeper will submit the comments to POPLA. Thanks a lot.