NCP failed appeal - one wrong digit in ticket

Crooper

Thanks Coupon-mad. I think it's a cultural thing plus I alway feel something is my fault, even when it isn't.

So I should just focus on the wrong digit even though in my appeal to NCP I just wrote about the time? If I take that out and alter the "charge," the referred bit and spelling mistake, I can email my rubbish letter?

Thanks MistyZ I will change it to charge.

Yes I had a pin number from POPLA I will change that bit too.

Thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated.

I had a family berreavement yesterday so I could do with out all this, but it is the principle of it!

The_Deep

Crooper wrote: »

Umkomaas, I am not sure what to call it if isn't a fine, a charge?

Thanks

C

It is an invoice for the damage they allege you inflicted upon them when you allegedly breached an allege contract. We call it a scam.

IMO it is unlikely that a judge would consider this to be a breach of contract. He is more like to regard it as de minimis, a trifle, and the law does not concern itself with trifles

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this 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.

Crooper

Thanks The Deep, that is very interesting. I am not surprised as I have other horror stories. Fingers crosssed that it becomes more regulated soon.

Umkomaas

I am not surprised as I have other horror stories.

We are dealing with up to 100 cases of these every day of the week, and trust me, this is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg!

Coupon-mad

Try this instead, albeit you must add in #4 and #5:

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX

[STRIKE]I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated … acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – NCP – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on … and rejected via an email dated …. I contend that I, as the keeper,[/STRIKE]

I am the driver and keeper of this car and I contend I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

[STRIKE]A.[/STRIKE]
1. The Notice to Keeper failed to communicate why the charge was issued.

2. If the charge is about exceeding a Grace Period: BPA CoP breach
[STRIKE]Code of Practice – non-compliance 1[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]B.[/STRIKE]
3. If the charge is about their system failing to record the VRN: charges cannot be brought merely to punish drivers and the fault lay with the keypad system.
[STRIKE]Sticky keys on the keypad led to the mis-recording of the car's registration Number, a ticket purchased showing payment had been made to park, thus not parking illegally[/STRIKE]

4. No landowner authority.

5. The signs at the PDT machine do not list the parking charge, only the tariffs, and thus at the point of sale, £100 was not part of any contract.


*************************


1. The Notice to Keeper failed to communicate why the charge was issued.
Even in cases where the POFA does not need to apply due to a driver being the appellant, it is reasonable to expect POPLA to apply POFA NTK standards as the minimum expectation. I received this unexpected NTK and had no idea whatsoever why the charge was even issued. Please inspect the NTK - you will see there is nothing that can comply with Schedule 4 para 9(2)c:

''The notice must—
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable''.

There were no such facts, and the above is mandatory and surely the least a properly given NTK should include, is the facts as to what caused the charge to arise! I thought they must have been relying upon some sort of alleged overstay, so I appealed on that basis and am still unsure what the operator's case actually is, which puts me at an unfair disadvantage at POPLA.



2. If the charge is about exceeding a Grace Period: BPA CoP breach.

On the basis of my first appeal, I can see the total unproven time stated on the NTK alleges an overstay of 10 minutes and 4 seconds. I stated in my appeal that this event was during Christmas period, so it was hard to find a space due to how busy the car park was that day, and so a grace period must apply.

The BPA Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. POPLA's so-called ''Sector Expert'' or your BPA contacts cannot tell POPLA otherwise, because their CoP makes this clear:

BPA CoP (13.2) states that: “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.”

NB: ''STAY OR GO''; this observation period is not just for people who choose to ''go''.

In addition, the BPA CoP (13.4) states that: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Further, in PART B OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES the BPA CoP adds at 18.5:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you.”

Confirming the above TWO grace periods and the fact that there is a difference between the two 'grace times and that BOTH apply), Kelvin Reynolds was quoted in an official BPA article here:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

Good car parking practice includes 'grace' periods

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.''

Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which NCP Claim via their PCN was 2 hours 10 minutes and 4 seconds, though the parking ticket time shows that it was 2 hours 1 minute and 4 seconds, I enclose photos below to show this), was well within the grace period, especially given that it was a week before Christmas at the weekend when more people don’t work and would be Christmas shopping, making it harder to find a space due to a busy car park.

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate an empty parking space
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions during this busy period
• Decipher the information
• Decide how long to park for, and input all the details on the sticky keypad
• Pay for a ticket in a cramped area full of people queuing to use the three machines to pay for their ticket to park
• Then once returned from the shopping trip, packing up the car, dropping the trolley back off at the trolley bay then walking back to the car
• Then safely leave the car park when many other shoppers were leaving the car park ahead


3. If the charge is about their system failing to record the full VRN: charges cannot be brought merely to punish drivers and the fault lay with the keypad system.

It was only when the rejection letter arrived that I saw that the operator was suddenly alleging for the first time that the full VRN didn't match the ANPR images. One wonders ''so what? Rectify your data mismatch then, since you have the VRN all along'' given the fact that the operator has the full VRN in a photo image taken by ANPR (so the data is within their gift all along) and are required to carry out manual checks to avoid improperly issuing punitive PCNs.

I say that the fault lay with their keypad, as I can state to POPLA that I entered my VRN properly and am very familiar with it. The operator is put to strict proof that their keypad was working properly and not transposing digits or misfeeding data into the system, causing PCNs to arise that day.

In any case, I had paid to park and NCP's appeal form did not allow for the photo of my ticket to be uploaded. In my complaint to them, where I thought they were accusing me of an overstay, I offered to send the ticket to them if they let me know how, but they just sent a template rejection out of hand. Therefore, I include the ticket here.:

<embedded PDT image>

This shows that a valid Pay & Display Ticket (PDT) was purchased for the stay, but for reasons not known to me and due to a fault with the machine, it reads **** but it should have read ****, therefore only one digit was incorrect. This is in any case, a matter of de minimis, a fact that PATAS adjudicators understand regarding penalty tickets on street, with decisions being made in drivers' favour where the difference is minimal (one digit is certainly minimal). POPLA can apply the same standards, certainly where you can see the parking firm has the VRN data anyway and has no excuse of not knowing which car the payment applies to.

In any case, by printing a PDT, a contract was formed by acceptance of the money and the PDT is the receipt. NCP appear to be trying to punish drivers for alleged VRN typos which are more likely to arise as a result of their own system/keypad fault.

Operators cannot issue PCNs merely to punish drivers, even if they prove that the error was not caused by their own systems. In 2017 the BPA sent a message to its operators reminding them to put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to ''focus on effective car park management rather than mistake punishment''.

The Beavis case also confirmed this unequivocally, at 32:

''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The {parking firm} can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter.

His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.

In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

The Beavis case is fully distinguished and the four tests for a penalty strike this charge out as unconscionable, where a parking operator already has the VRN data and would have had no trouble at all matching the payment, regardless of 'fault' causing a minor VRN difference.

A NTK issued to punish the fact a VRN in the PDT machine system is one digit different from the data the operator already KNOWS is correct from their ANPR image data, is never properly given.


4. No landowner authority.

YOU MUST ADD THE TEMPLATE HERE. SEE NEWBIES THREAD POST #3...



5. The signs at the PDT machine do not list the parking charge, only the tariffs, and thus at the point of sale, £100 was not part of any contract.
YOU MUST ADD THE SIGNAGE TEMPLATE HERE. SEE NEWBIES THREAD POST #3...AND ADD THE BIT BELOW, WITH A PHOTO OF THE MACHINE TERMS IF YOU CAN.

Then the usual template POPLA appeal point for #4 and #5 (see NEWBIES thread post #3, you can find them there, easily. I've given you the titles in the heading above.

In the signage point, include this, with photos if you can get them to make the appeal even longer and prettier/easier to read for the Assessor:

Signage was not visible from all parking spots, as there are only signs by the car park entrance on the ground floor, the car was parked on the first floor and the ticket machines are in a somewhat enclosed area located by the doors to the escalators that lead to the shops the car was not parked in front of this area facing it. Photos embedded here below, show the machine and the fact there is no mention of £100 penalty on the tariff list at all:

Do not upload photos separately, embed them directly into the appeal document then save it as a PDF when you are happy with it.

Crooper

Coupon-mad,

Thanks so much for this, it is appreciated more than you will ever know. You are proof that guardian angels exist! That there is still hope for humanity. You have made this look and sound amazing. A zillion times better than mine. I will pretend that I understand it all. I think I get the gist though.

I will add in the extra bits as directed.

Do I need to do anything about the bit that says re-word clause 13.4? Sorry that probably makes me sound more stupid...

Thanks every so much again. I can't thank you enough.

Crooper

Coupon-mad

No you don't have to change that, as it's quoting from the linked minutes of a meeting.

No problem, it was my day off and I was waiting for a delivery at home and could see you needed a re-write to sort this out.

Crooper

Coupon-mad,

I think I have finished minus needing to go out and get some more photos shortly.

Is the POPLA appeal point 4 & 5 the same as the land ownership and signage point 4 & 5? I just wanted to double check. Do I need the remove the titles that you put in to help me locate the right templates?

Many thanks, your help is greatly appreciated.

Crooper

Crooper

Coupon-mad,

Thanks so much for giving your time on your day off...it's very kind of you. Yes I was very much in need a re-write...

I have got the photos, I am not sure that they help my appeal. I can't paste them here for some reason. I am not sure if I therefore should include them.

Crooper

Crooper

Hi

A big thank you to all of you, especially Coupon Mad who helped me with my appeal. I won my appeal. NCP declined to fight it.

Many thanks,

Crooper