Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

familyguy321

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.

Hi Umkomaas,

Thanks for confirming they are new. I did think so as I could hardly find anything about them online.

In terms of the SAR to PP, I don't think I can do this as they were not the operator at the time the registered keeper received the PCN? For clarification, I did send a SAR to OPS back in April and the response was garbage.

I might do the DVLA SAR though.

Regards,
FG

familyguy321

My POPLA decision has come through and unfortunately the appeal was unsuccessful. After reading the assessors summary, I am left feeling frustrating as it seems she did not read the evidence properly and made several glaring errors in her rationale. I am left feeling very angry at this after having spent so much time and not sure what do to next - pay £100 and forget about it or go court (and spend more time on this). Please advise?

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
• They state that they made the correct payment was made and the ticket was displayed
• They say that the terms and conditions in the car park are not clear and consistent
• They state that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR.
• They advise that the Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements as there is no evidence of the period parked.

In response to the operator’s evidence the appellant states the following:
• They say that the operator has not provided the full records from the parking machines.
• They question whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the land.
• They mention that the entrance sign has been changed and is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that they have visited the site again and they have not seen the signs regarding the use of ANPR cameras. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid Pay & Display Ticket (P & D) in the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay, tickets must be purchased from the onsite ticket machines and a valid vehicle registration number entered (tickets are non-transferable between vehicles).”,” By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above, you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms”, ”You agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the sum of £100”.

Two things are incorrect here:
1. There was no site map was provided in the evidence submitted by OPS. Only photos of signage.
2. The signage referred to by the assessor is nowhere near the entrance or payment machine. How can the driver agree to terms that are not easy to see?!

Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 14:50 and exiting at 17:04 on the day of the incident.

Incorrect again. The photographs show the car entering at 16:23 and exiting at 17:00.

The operator has provided evidence to show that no payment had been made for the vehicle registration the appellant was driving on the day in question.

That's fine, but why has the assessor not considered that several requests were made for a copy of redacted records from the parking machine. If OPS provided this it would clearly show a payment was made, albeit against a mistyped VRN.

On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached.

Contract....what a joke(!)

I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that they made the correct payment was made and the ticket was displayed. In the comments section they say that the operator has not provided the full records from the parking machines. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The evidence provided by the operator shows that no payment had been made for the vehicle for all payment machines, and if a payment had been made against the vehicle registration this would have been reflected.

Completely missing the point of registered keeper requesting records from the payment machines. There is an obvious reason why OPS did not provide the records.

The appellant says that the terms and conditions in the car park are not clear and consistent. They mention that the entrance sign has been changed and is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that they have visited the site again and they have not seen the signs regarding the use of ANPR cameras I note the appellant’s comments regarding the entrance sign, however, although operators should provide an entrance sign to advise motorists that they are entering a managed car park, this is not the only way the information can be provided. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the other signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. This states “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

The only site map was in the evidence provided by the registered keeper which highlighted 2 signs by the parking machine with different terms and conditions. As explained in the appeal, neither sign stated that vehicle registration needs to be entered.

I can see from the evidence provided by both parties that the sign regarding ANPR cameras is clearly visible on the pole supporting the entrance sign. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR. I note the appellant’s comment however POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN has been issued in line with the terms of the site. The appellant can contact the ICO’s office (Information Commissioners Office) for assistance.

Will contact ICO it this goes to court.

The appellant questions whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the land in the comments section. I note the comments the appellant has provided in the comments section of the appeal, however this section is for simply providing comments and not for raising new grounds of appeal. As such, I cannot consider the new grounds raised by the appellant.

I feared this may happen and in hindsight should have included in the initial appeal.

The appellant advises that the Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements as there is no evidence of the period parked. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign and that motorists are advised that “When on site, we will capture your details including vehicle registration mark and relevant activity, using Parking Wardens and or CCTV/ (Closed circuit television ) and/or ANPR( automated number plate recognition) in order to enforce parking terms and conditions”.. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

Two points here:
1. There isn't an ANPR icon on every sign
2. That wording is on just 1 sign which is not in the same car park based on lat/long co-ordinates stamped on the photo. Another glaring error missed by the assessor.

Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The motorist chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.

There's 3 different versions of terms and conditions in the car park....which one was accepted?! :rotfl:

Redx

if there are procedural errors, you can complain to the lead assessor John Gallagher


in any case, you dont owe a penny unless a judge says so, in court, so bear that in mind and ensure any defence is worthy of your hard work so far, so much so as write one out now whilst its all fresh in your mind etc


and a WS too , be prepared !!

familyguy321

Redx wrote: »

if there are procedural errors, you can complain to the lead assessor John Gallagher


in any case, you dont owe a penny unless a judge says so, in court, so bear that in mind and ensure any defence is worthy of your hard work so far, so much so as write one out now whilst its all fresh in your mind etc


and a WS too , be prepared !!

Thanks Redx. How do I contact John Gallagher?

The thing with going to court is that my mum is elderly and I know the very thought of going court would scare her - she is aware about the POPLA appeal but I've not mentioned the outcome to her as yet.

Redx

check the popla reply and their site, probably email him FAO JOHN GALLAGHER and put forward any procedural complaints, but be specific , if they failed , state where and why, not just a moan

put his name into the forum search box and see what others did

the defendant can email the court a couple of weeks before and state they wont be attending and want the case heard on papers, nowhere near as good an idea, but possible

also bear in mind that if she committed a traffic offence she could be summoned to magistrates court, what would she do in that scenario ?

Quentin

familyguy321 wrote: »

Thanks Redx. How do I contact John Gallagher?

The thing with going to court is that my mum is elderly and I know the very thought of going court would scare her - she is aware about the POPLA appeal but I've not mentioned the outcome to her as yet.

Well you were advised what the outcome would be of your popla appeal and that court was inevitable at the beginning of last month!

This will be a county court, not magistrates, not scary!

You will be able to attend and do the presentation, but the defendant must attend a hearing

Redx

just looked back and seen that CM stated this when it was noted that no landowner authority had been omitted from the popla appeal , hence why they didnt consider it in their summing up

I have been telling people to use the following for over 5 years on here

NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
any POFA failures
any BPA CoP failures
Grace Periods
de minimis over key entry issues (miskeying)

etc

the first hurdle a claimant has to get over is their proof of landowner authority

but at least this could be brought up in court (county court) , which is just a few people in a room, with the possible outcome a loss of £175 ( £100 charge plus court and legal fees) - its not as if its jail or the stocks or imprisoned in the Tower dungeon, just a dispute over money, and a judgement and one side owes the other side some money

or the £100 fee is paid now and its over with

its either pay or fight (fight also includes a complaint to J G)

Nixson212

Hi FG123,

Definitely worth fighting, don't give up just because the parking operators stooge POPLA backs them. I'm sure there was a similar thread with HX parking where the OP had the same thing more or less, mistyped the VRM, went to court and the judge threw it out. Admittedly they still had the ticket.

I just sent an email to the local paper to see if they they would take the story up as I am sure other people have been caught out by this same machine not printing the full VRM just like you and me in the same car park. Perhaps it is too small an issue for the paper but worth a try.

Probably the same people behind Paralell Parkind as OPS. Just changed their name for shady purposes. I think more than 1 person having the same issue with the PDT definitely throws doubt on the machine as being faulty. Would you be interested in combining forces?

Umkomaas

Nixson212 wrote: »

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😳

familyguy321 wrote: »

Hi Umkomaas,

Thanks for confirming they are new. I did think so as I could hardly find anything about them online.

In terms of the SAR to PP, I don't think I can do this as they were not the operator at the time the registered keeper received the PCN? For clarification, I did send a SAR to OPS back in April and the response was garbage.

I might do the DVLA SAR though.

Regards,
FG

Sorry - skim reading, thought PP was pursuing. Ignore SAR to PP suggestion.

familyguy321

Nixson212 wrote: »

Hi FG123,

Definitely worth fighting, don't give up just because the parking operators stooge POPLA backs them. I'm sure there was a similar thread with HX parking where the OP had the same thing more or less, mistyped the VRM, went to court and the judge threw it out. Admittedly they still had the ticket.

I just sent an email to the local paper to see if they they would take the story up as I am sure other people have been caught out by this same machine not printing the full VRM just like you and me in the same car park. Perhaps it is too small an issue for the paper but worth a try.

Probably the same people behind Paralell Parkind as OPS. Just changed their name for shady purposes. I think more than 1 person having the same issue with the PDT definitely throws doubt on the machine as being faulty. Would you be interested in combining forces?

Definitely interested in combining forces! As you said, I'm sure others have been caught out by the same machine. Which paper did you contact?

Do you have the link for the HX parking thread? If not, no worries I can try searching for it.

FG