Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

MistyZ

Redx wrote: »

Leave the typo in, it is context that is important and you are claiming that this evidenced contract is missing from the evidence pack they supplied

I agree, quote their words exactly as they are. I don't think the typo invalidates the contract though .... (?)

familyguy321

MistyZ wrote: »

I agree, quote their words exactly as they are. I don't think the typo invalidates the contract though .... (?)

If it's a typo (which is likely) then I agree it doesn't invalidate the contract. My thoughts were if it's not a typo then can it be argued there is no contract. Just 'contact'. Either way, I will not correct it.

Ironically, the whole reason for this PCN is due to a typo when entering the VRN

Redx

Lol, I agree , it is what it is but the irony is there

Fruitcake

familyguy321 wrote: »

If it's a typo (which is likely) then I agree it doesn't invalidate the contract. My thoughts were if it's not a typo then can it be argued there is no contract. Just 'contact'. Either way, I will not correct it.

Ironically, the whole reason for this PCN is due to a typo when entering the VRN

I would mention that if possible to show that the scammers are also fallible and this one typo could be enough to lose a court case. If an allegedly professional business can make a small error when typing, it is unreasonable to charge a motorist for an equally small error.

If you have time, "I" would like to know what is underneath the blue sticky tape on some of the signs. Perhaps there is the name of a different PPC. Perhaps some person or persons unknown has defaced the sign by adding that tape. Surely the PPC and BPA etcetera would want to know if sign tampering had taken place.

If the scammers have a piccy of the sign with tape and you had one with something different underneath, you could say that the "untaped" version is what was present at the time of the alleged event but your and the scammers images taken post event have clearly been doctored by "someone."

MistyZ

Fruitcake wrote: »

I would mention that if possible to show that the scammers are also fallible and this one typo could be enough to lose a court case. If an allegedly professional business can make a small error when typing, it is unreasonable to charge a motorist for an equally small error.

Have they made any more typos? On the NTK? On any other correspondence? In their evidence? If so it might be good to list them all just in case this does go to court.

familyguy321

Fruitcake wrote: »

I would mention that if possible to show that the scammers are also fallible and this one typo could be enough to lose a court case. If an allegedly professional business can make a small error when typing, it is unreasonable to charge a motorist for an equally small error.

If you have time, "I" would like to know what is underneath the blue sticky tape on some of the signs. Perhaps there is the name of a different PPC. Perhaps some person or persons unknown has defaced the sign by adding that tape. Surely the PPC and BPA etcetera would want to know if sign tampering had taken place.

If the scammers have a piccy of the sign with tape and you had one with something different underneath, you could say that the "untaped" version is what was present at the time of the alleged event but your and the scammers images taken post event have clearly been doctored by "someone."

Good point Fruitcake. I've rechecked my images and they do have the tape on them, so I assume OPS taped over the previous operators details when they took over the contract (or contact :think:) instead of getting new signs made. They even tried to cover the £125 on the main entrance sign (can still see it) and wrote £100 in white next to it....very professional!

The_Deep

What crime would one be committing if one removed the tape? Purely out of curiosity of course.

familyguy321

MistyZ wrote: »

Have they made any more typos? On the NTK? On any other correspondence? In their evidence? If so it might be good to list them all just in case this does go to court.

I've had another read through their correspondence and can't find any other typo. However, I did notice that in their appeal rejection letter they have just included date where it says contravention date/time. Is it necessary to include time if all the other references (PCN no and VRN) are the same as NtK? Does it fail to comply with any BPA CoP?

familyguy321

The_Deep wrote: »

What crime would one be committing if one removed the tape? Purely out of curiosity of course.

Vandalism to private property?

Coupon-mad

That sign with the altered £125 could win this at POPLA. Is it an image you've already shown as evidence to POPLA? If so, remind them:

[STRIKE]In response to the claim by OPS that no evidence of payment has been provided, I have made attempts to request a redacted copy of the records from the parking payment machines via a Subject Access Request and then directly to OPS. Unfortunately,[/STRIKE] OPS have not been forthcoming with a copy of the records from the parking payment machines [STRIKE]this information and have so far[/STRIKE] only providing [STRIKE]provided[/STRIKE] a screenshot of a search against my exact registration. I infer that OPS have the information I’ve requested but do not want to share as it would clearly show a payment of £1.30 was made. [STRIKE]that is not matched to a vehicle recorded as present – which would be my vehicle[/STRIKE].

OPS claims that the signage has been audited [STRIKE]and approved[/STRIKE] by the BPA, but have not provided evidence. [STRIKE]of this[/STRIKE]. [STRIKE]I will reiterate point 2 of my[/STRIKE] My initial appeal [STRIKE]that clearly[/STRIKE] explains why the signage placed throughout the site fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) in several areas.

The blue/red sign has had the tariffs altered, which I contend no longer match the landowner authorised tariffs but OPS have omitted to show that contract. Further, the penalty appears to be £125 which exceeds the CoP and POFA ceiling and doesn't match the PCN issued. Someone (a child?) has badly crayoned '100' (or could be the word 'loo') and tried to cover the £125 but this is an amateurish alteration and the alleged contract is uncertain, with drivers unable to agree to pay either sum.

[STRIKE]Furthermore,[/STRIKE] In reference to OPS’ claim that there is signage at the site regarding ANPR that complies with the ICO’s CoP, I would put to OPS to provide the location of said sign as it is clearly not anywhere near the entrance signs or the payment machine. [STRIKE]Furthermore, this sign[/STRIKE] It does not state anywhere that the [STRIKE]personal[/STRIKE] data collected will be shared to a third party, in this case ZZPS, who subsequently used the personal data to make a “DVLA referral” [STRIKE]on 26/03/2019[/STRIKE] for the registered keepers address. [STRIKE]This a serious failure to comply with the BPA CoP and Consumer law.[/STRIKE]

Lastly, in point 3 of their case summary PDF, OPS claim: 'The Client is authorised to manage the Site by way of an operating contact* between them and the landowners (Evidenced).' But no such evidence is provided. I therefore conclude that OPS do not have authority to operate at this site.

[STRIKE]In light of my comments above,[/STRIKE] I request that the POPLA assessor uphold my appeal and inform OPS to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.