Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

familyguy321

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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:

Hi CM, thank you very much for taking the time to review and amend my response. Just about fits into the 2000 characters

Yes, I did highlight the altered £125 in my original appeal and included an image of the sign.

This is the final draft of what I intend to submit later today. Let me know if anything else needs amending.

OPS have not been forthcoming with a copy of the records from the parking payment machines, only providing 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.

OPS claims that the signage has been audited by the BPA, but have not provided evidence. My initial appeal 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 at the entrance 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.

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. It does not state anywhere that the data collected will be shared to ZZPS who subsequently used my personal data to make a “DVLA referral” for the registered keepers address.

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. I would also like to point out the typo in their sentence i.e. contact instead of contract.
I request that the POPLA assessor uphold my appeal and inform OPS to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Yours faithfully,
<registered keeper>

Redx

too many characters in Notepad++ (more than 2000)

you do not need to sign it off because you will be logging in and submitting it as keeper anyway, its a rebuttal not a letter

try removing more spurious words as well , no need for popla (or the popla assessor, just POPLA) in the popla assessor, because nobody else is assessing it but popla

also it says above PENALTY charge notice, but OPS issued a PARKING charge notice, surely ? words matter , so like this

OPS have not been forthcoming with a copy of the records from the parking payment machines, only providing 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.

OPS claims that the signage has been audited by the BPA, but have not provided evidence. My initial appeal 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 at the entrance 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.

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. It does not state anywhere that the data collected will be shared to ZZPS who subsequently used my personal data to make a “DVLA referral” for the registered keepers address.

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. I would also like to point out the typo in their sentence i.e. contact instead of contract.
I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and inform OPS to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

familyguy321

Thanks Redx, I've made the changes suggested. I have 70 characters left according to the POPLA comment box.

One interesting thing, I re-visited the car park this afternoon as this ANPR sign in their evidence pack has been bugging me. I had not seen it in my previous re-visit of the car park and sure enough I did not find it anywhere again today. Also, the date on the image is different to the others in the pack and the lat/long seem to match a location in India (if I have used Google maps correctly). On a side note, they have now put this sign everywhere in the car park whereas before it was a handful dotted around.

Based on the info about the ANPR sign, I have rewritten paragraph 4 below. Please let me know if it needs amending:

OPS have not been forthcoming with a copy of the records from the parking payment machines, only providing 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.

OPS claims that the signage has been audited by the BPA, but have not provided evidence. My initial appeal 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 at the entrance 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.

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 the lat/long co-ordinates on the image do not match those of the car park. I’ve revisited the car park and could not find this sign anywhere including near the entrance or payment machine. I also note that the date on the image states 31/10/2018 which is different to when the other images were apparently taken (28/01/2019).

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. I would also like to point out the typo in their sentence i.e. contact instead of contract.

I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and inform OPS to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

MistyZ

familyguy321 wrote: »

One interesting thing, I re-visited the car park this afternoon as this ANPR sign in their evidence pack has been bugging me. I had not seen it in my previous re-visit of the car park and sure enough I did not find it anywhere again today. Also, the date on the image is different to the others in the pack and the lat/long seem to match a location in India (if I have used Google maps correctly). On a side note, they have now put this sign everywhere in the car park whereas before it was a handful dotted around.

The location info. is truly bizarre! It'd be great to think that a POPLA assessor would get busy investigating, but I doubt that'll happen. However I can see an interesting complaint to the BPA on the horizon!

Why not state that having checked the car park several times you can confirm that the ANPR sign shown in the evidence pack IS NOT in the car park as opposed to saying that you can't find it? That's more definite and also refers the assessor back to the specific image in the evidence.

For various reasons I would not use the word 're-visited'!

familyguy321

No response from POPLA as yet but it seems OPS are no longer operating the car park!

This change must have happened very recently as I drove past couple of weeks ago and it was still OPS. Has anyone heard of Parallel Parking? They don't seem to have much of an online presence. I noticed that they have left some old boards including one of OPS'. One thing is clear - PP's T&Cs board states that full vehicle registration must be entered which was not on the equivalent OPS board.







Old signs:

Coupon-mad

Dunno which signs are worse, LOL! Finding £100 on either sign is a task in itself.

And honestly, are they having a laugh calling their scum firm 'Parallel Parking'?!

Nixson212

Hi Familyguy123,

I am in the same boat as you. Same car park same issue PDT would not let the driver enter the full reg of the car just the first letter. Luckily the driver kept the ticket as well as a previous ticket few days earlier where the PDT would not allow full reg to be entered. date of contravention on the NTK was typed as 07/01/2019 when in-fact the actual date of parking was 01/07/2019.

Looks like the PDT is definitely faulty.

would be good to know if they changed the signs before or after 01/07/2019.

initial appeal rejected to OPS about to draft a POPLA but if the operator has changed is the PCN enforceable?

Umkomaas

Parallel Parking - new kids on the block - 1 month old. Very fast out of the blocks, haven't wasted much time in getting their snout into the trough!

Send them a SAR to give them something to deal with, and see how they cope with that (see NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2).

Also, contact the DVLA to check how they accessed your data. They should be doing this manually during a probationary period, so might not meet PoFA requirements if there's a time lag as a result.

DVLA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS

You should email the DVLA and ask which organisations (when, for what reason and by what method) accessed the registered keeper's data from them between a range of dates which includes the date(s) of the parking incident(s). You need to provide the registered keeper's full name and address, the address on the V5C logbook and the Vehicle Registration Mark of the vehicle involved in the parking incident.

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

This service is free of charge.

Even though you email your request, the DVLA will respond via Royal Mail.

familyguy321

Nixson212 wrote: »

Hi Familyguy123,

I am in the same boat as you. Same car park same issue PDT would not let the driver enter the full reg of the car just the first letter. Luckily the driver kept the ticket as well as a previous ticket few days earlier where the PDT would not allow full reg to be entered. date of contravention on the NTK was typed as 07/01/2019 when in-fact the actual date of parking was 01/07/2019.

Looks like the PDT is definitely faulty.

would be good to know if they changed the signs before or after 01/07/2019.

initial appeal rejected to OPS about to draft a POPLA but if the operator has changed is the PCN enforceable?

Hi Nixson,

Sorry to hear you're having to go through this too. They definitely changed the signs after 01/07 as OPS boards were still up a couple of weeks ago.

Good luck with your POPLA appeal - I've just my decision come through. I'll detail it in a separate post below.

Regards,
FG

Nixson212

Umkomaas wrote: »

Parallel Parking - new kids on the block - 1 month old. Very fast out of the blocks, haven't wasted much time in getting their snout into the trough!

Send them a SAR to give them something to deal with, and see how they cope with that (see NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2).

Also, contact the DVLA to check how they accessed your data. They should be doing this manually during a probationary period, so might not meet PoFA requirements if there's a time lag as a result.

DVLA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS

You should email the DVLA and ask which organisations (when, for what reason and by what method) accessed the registered keeper's data from them between a range of dates which includes the date(s) of the parking incident(s). You need to provide the registered keeper's full name and address, the address on the V5C logbook and the Vehicle Registration Mark of the vehicle involved in the parking incident.

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

This service is free of charge.

Even though you email your request, the DVLA will respond via Royal Mail.

Thanks Umkomaas,

My PCN was from OPS is there any reason I should get a SAR from parallel?

Maybe I should post on a new thread, don't want to hijack this one😳