Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

Mappy3333

No, not the same car park I'm afraid. Ours was in Poole.

familyguy321

Mappy3333 wrote: »

No, not the same car park I'm afraid. Ours was in Poole.

Ah I see. Good luck with your case, let me know how it goes in court.

familyguy321

Westy64 wrote: »

Hi.
I am in a similar position - entered the wrong reg no for a ticket on a railway car park run by Saba.
First - establish what type of land you were on. Don't be phased by threats and official looking "fines". Their only recourse if on private land is breach of contract through the small claims court. As mine was on railway land, I can be taken to magistrate's court but will still fight all the way to court and appeal if necessary. Whatever the outcome, receiving a parking fine is not a crime.
Follow their appeal process. Quote the following legal precedent: Parking Eye Ltd vs Heggie. You should be able to download the full transcript at: nebula.wsimg.com/bae7471710c27d4d03bc22c4486bd258?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1[/url]
You may enjoy reading the judge's summing up - as I am looking forward to reading it out if I get my day in court.
All the best.

Thanks Westy, I will definitely be fighting on - can't let these scammers get away with this.

familyguy321

All, after much thought I have decided to take on OPS and fight this 'charge'. :j

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has responded and helped me make this decision. It would have been easy to have paid the fine but deep down inside I know that I would have always regretted that if there is a chance to get the PCN cancelled.

I will do some more reading up over the next few weeks and put together a draft defence for review on here.

Let's fight the scammers together!!

FG

Umkomaas

Westy64 wrote: »

Hi.
I am in a similar position - entered the wrong reg no for a ticket on a railway car park run by Saba.
First - establish what type of land you were on. Don't be phased by threats and official looking "fines". Their only recourse if on private land is breach of contract through the small claims court. As mine was on railway land, I can be taken to magistrate's court but will still fight all the way to court and appeal if necessary. Whatever the outcome, receiving a parking fine is not a crime.
Follow their appeal process. Quote the following legal precedent: Parking Eye Ltd vs Heggie. You should be able to download the full transcript at: nebula.wsimg.com/bae7471710c27d4d03bc22c4486bd258?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1[/url]
You may enjoy reading the judge's summing up - as I am looking forward to reading it out if I get my day in court.
All the best.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but decisions in the small claims court carry no legal precedent and are not even persuasive in any other cases.

In any event, the Heggie case was from 2013 and much in the private parking legal world has changed, particularly the juggernaut car crash that was ParkingEye v Beavis where, had the Heggie case have been heard post-Beavis, he would most likely have lost.

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
Case CS016 from the list

In this case whilst I am satisfied that there is a technical breach of
17 the contract I am not satisfied that the claimants have suffered any loss. A car was parked and it was
18 parked for a period of time that the defendant had paid for. So on that basis I do find in favour of the
19 claimant. So I will dismiss the claim brought by Parking Eye on the basis that there was no loss
20 suffered by them.

The Beavis case all but killed the above. I think waving it in front of any Judge hearing your case is likely to get them to focus on Beavis too much and miss other points you are making.

Incidentally, if the Heggie case was heard today, as he was only 4 minutes over his paid for parking time, he would likely have won based on BPA grace periods!

Nixson212

OPS are SCUM -

ht**s://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/gs_car_park/le1/leicester/?arriving=201908260400&leaving=201908260600

Just read the reviews, so many people scammed by them, they have just mortgaged their 'helicopter' according to public knowledge Companies House so many people just pay up.

Umkomaas

Nixson212 wrote: »

OPS are SCUM -

ht**s://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/gs_car_park/le1/leicester/?arriving=201908260400&leaving=201908260600

Just read the reviews, so many people scammed by them, they have just mortgaged their 'helicopter' according to public knowledge Companies House so many people just pay up.

https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/gs_car_park/le1/leicester/?arriving=201908260400&leaving=201908260600

The car park you reference above is [STRIKE]scammed[/STRIKE] run by Elite Management Midlands according to the Parkopedia page.

Nixson212

Just sent an update email to parkopedia to change the operator details. Shame there is no way to contact those that left the reviews, would be handy to put some pressure on the local MP.

Read somewhere on the forum that OPS were thrown out of operating a car park in Peacehaven because of th number of complaints to a local MP.

I will draft a letter to mine anyway, OPS no longer operate the car park where I got my PCN but we need to keep pressure up on the new operators and the industry in general. No one minds paying for parking but these underhanded, unfair and predatory tactics do nothing for the community, local council, businesses and the general public to inspire confidence.

The director of OPS runs several businesses from one location enjoying the profits made on the backs of their customers unhappiness. Set-up operatorships with unmanned ANPR then sit back and charge charge charge.

Maybe we should club together and set-up our own operatorships and show them how it should be done.

Rant over, enjoy the rest f the bank holiday!:beer:

familyguy321

I have received a response from POPLA with regards to complaint I made about procedural errors following the rejection of my appeal. The response below from POPLA may as well have been written by OPS themselves!!

Dear xxxxxxx,

Your complaint about POPLA

Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA Team, as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached in your case against One Parking Solution Ltd.

POPLA is a one-stage appeal process and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may re consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error. Such as evidence was missed. Having reviewed your case, I am satisfied that no procedural error has occurred, and all information provided within your appeal has been considered.

I note that you have raised a few concerns with the assessor’s report and so, I have separated my response into several sections, each with a subtitle for ease.

You state - Gayle states a site map was provided by the parking operator. This is incorrect. There was no site map provided in the evidence submitted by the operator. Therefore, there was no way of her knowing where the signage was located.

I can confirm that a site map was not provided within the operator’s case file therefore, this should not have been stated within the report. Whilst a site map was not provided, there were a sufficient number of photographs of the signage displayed at the site which was provided to POPLA. The photographs show the signs spread evenly throughout the site.

You state - Gayle states the photographs provided by the operator show my vehicle entering the car park at 14:50 and exiting at 17:04. Incorrect once again. The photographs show my vehicle entering at 16:23 and exiting at 17:00. A significant difference in the timings.


I am satisfied that Gayle has made an error when stating the entry and exit times. Your vehicle shows an entry time of 16:23 and exit time of 17:00. I will be sending feedback to the assessor regarding this and again, I apologise for any confusion this has caused.

You state: Gayle states 'it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and operator'. There is no evidence of a contract provided by the operator so has she assumed that there is one?

You have not raised any concerns with the operator’s contract within your grounds for appeal. This was only raised to POPLA at the comments stage of the appeal process. The comments stage is to expand upon the original grounds raised. It is not to be used as a platform to raise new issues.

I believe the assessor has considered there is contract between yourself and the operator because you made the decision to park on site for 37 minutes. By remaining on site for this period, you have indicated your acceptance of the terms in place and therefore, formed a contract with the parking operator.

You state: Gayle states that the terms of the car park were accepted. As highlighted in my evidence pack, there are 3 different versions of the terms and conditions within the car park - how can the terms be accepted when the signage is not in line with the BPAs Code of Practice (18.3) that states signs must be easy to see, read and understand.

Gayle has reviewed the signage against the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and was satisfied that the signs complied with the BPA. I appreciate you provided evidence of the signs. I can see that the assessor considered this information. The fact remains that a payment was to be made for parking. As no payment was made a PCN was issued.

I understand that errors have been made in this report and I will be sending feedback to the assessor regarding this. However, the errors do not change the outcome reached. As a motorist parking on site, a payment should have been made and it was not. The signs advise a PCN will be issued to vehicles failing to clearly display a valid Pay & Display Ticket. Therefore, I am satisfied that the correct outcome has been reached.

I am sorry you feel that your experience of using our service has not been a positive one, however, my letter now concludes our complaints procedure and there will be no further review of your complaint.

While I understand this is not the outcome you had hoped for, our involvement in your appeal has now concluded. If you wish to further dispute the issue of the PCN, this will be between yourself and the operator directly.

As we have reached the end of our process, it will not be appropriate to respond to any further correspondence on this matter. For clarity, if you choose to send us further correspondence, it will be noted but we will not respond.

Yours sincerely,
Ashlea Forshaw
POPLA Complaints Team

This bit really gets to me:

As a motorist parking on site, a payment should have been made and it was not. The signs advise a PCN will be issued to vehicles failing to clearly display a valid Pay & Display Ticket.

There has not been a single piece of evidence from OPS to show that payment was not made! :mad: The only information they are relying on is that the vehicle's reg number was not recorded on the payment machine. If OPS provided the redacted copy of records from that machine as requested 3 times, it would show a payment was made.

Looks like this is going to court.....

MistyZ

You must be fuming!

I presume this wonderful piece of ..... whatever .... will be permissible evidence for you at the court stage(?). Certainly hope so.

If it comes to court I'd like to be there for this one. I'd keep quiet I promise.