ECP incorrect registration

nsf0502

Hello, have had a read through to see what would be the best way to appeal this but still unsure.
My partner parked her car in a Euro car parks near work. She mistakenly purchased a 5 day ticket but also incorrectly entered the registration mixing the numbers and letters up. This is due to her being severely dyslexic (professional diagnosed proof available). We have proof of the ticket as she was so annoyed she had purchased a 5 day ticket sent me a picture that she could not believe what she had done, I didn't at the time notice that the registration was incorrect.
Is it best to send the standard appeal letter? They have sent a notice to keeper with picture of number plate entering and leaving.
Or should I appeal it with proof of Dyslexia and number plate incorrectly entered.
Thanks in advance for any replies.

The_Deep

She may be entitled to reasdonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, and. as this is a grey area, I would certainly inform the PPC of the dyslexia and, if they do not immediately cancel the charge, complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. 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.

KeithP

Send ECP the blue text appeal found in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations necessary.

Send it as the keeper.

The_Deep

I disagree with the above. I think that she should mention her condition in the appeal. That way, if it went to court, the judge might agree to award unreasonable behaviour costs against the PPC.

nsf0502

Not sure what will be best now. thanks for your replys though.
If anyone else has appealed like this and has had an outcome would help.

nsf0502

Still unsure, two conflicting replies.

The_Deep

Read my profile, I have advised some of the highest in the land.

Umkomaas

nsf0502 wrote: »

Still unsure, two conflicting replies.

Please draft out here exactly what you are proposing to add about the health condition and how it affected the transaction on the day. We can then advise more clearly.

The_Deep wrote: »

I have advised some of the highest in the land.

Moi aussi.

Fruitcake

I agree that the disability should be (carefully) mentioned and added to the standard template. I believe this case would be covered by the Equality Act 2010 as the person who entered the VRN (who was an occupant of the car) appears to have protected characteristics as defined by said act.

The occupant's illness caused the incorrect VRN to be entered. The scammers system failed to reject the incorrect VRN of a vehicle that was not in the car park, and so is obviously not fit for purpose.