Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

Coupon-mad

Warwick would be preferable because the chances are you won't even have to go the a hearing!

Q1. In point 3, you state the outstanding balance of £182.00 includes initial PCN and recovery charges. Could you please provide a cost breakdown of this £182.00, and given that debt collection is on a 'no collection no fee basis' are you saying this claimant has paid QDR or ZZPS £82 up front, and if so, show me that evidence.

Add a third question:

As this case is about a 'simple keying error' kindly supply me with the PDT machine record that closely matches the VRN, which is the right payment that OPS will have identified at the material time, but ignored.   OPS cannot ignore a 'simple keying error' because they are obliged to identify the payment and VRM close-match.  I will point out when I prevail in court, that they are bound by the BPA Code of Practice, which says:

(quote the new January CoP change about keying errors).

familyguy321

Thanks CM! Email sent 

familyguy321

A couple of updates since my last post.
To save scrolling back, this was the response to QDR sent in early March:

Thank you for responding to my email. I have some queries with regards to the information you have provided.

Q1. In point 3, you state the outstanding balance of £182.00 includes initial PCN and recovery charges. Could you please provide a cost breakdown of this £182.00, and given that debt collection is on a 'no collection no fee basis' are you saying this claimant has paid QDR or ZZPS £82 up front, and if so, show me that evidence.

Q2. In point 8, you state to refer to point 6 with regards to information on adding anything to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated. Point 6 refers to signage at the parking site. It is unclear how this is relevant as the signage does not give this information. Could you please elaborate?

Q3. As this case is about a 'simple keying error' kindly supply me with the PDT machine record that closely matches the VRM, which is the right payment that One Parking Solution Ltd will have identified at the material time, but ignored. One Parking Solution Ltd cannot ignore a 'simple keying error' because they are obliged to identify the payment and VRM close-match. They are bound by the BPA Code of Practice, which says, “car park operators have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges”.

I look forward to your response.
This was their reply:
Please see below a response to your comments questions one to three.The Initial PCN from the car park operator was £100.00 and recovery and late payment charges are £82.00Our response was clear in our below, any further information about the signage, the parking terms and conditions, and or the signage plan can be obtained by visiting the parking site in question in person.Please be aware that we are not to disclose any information which is sensitive to other people’s data, you had the opportunity to appeal this before to the car park operator within the time stipulated upon the notice.This matter is now at the recovery stage with us and our clients have confirmed this file can only be closed on the full payment of the balance above.That email was not responded to and now they have sent the following:
We write to you with reference to the above account.We have received instruction from our clients to offer you a reduced amount of £100 to settle this matter.Please get in touch with us to formalise a repayment plan.
I can't work out if QDR have come to their senses and realised that the £82.00 'recovery charge' is unlawful or already knew that and had added it to the 'balance' to make their letters seem more scary. Either way, will the offer of this settlement amount impact chances of winning this at court stage, which is where I suspect this is heading?

D_P_Dance

 and late payment charges are £82.00 

Which is of course unlawful.  Show this letter to a judge and he could throw the whole claim out.   Have you complained to the SRA? 

Do not pay them £100, they must know that they are now on a hiding to nothing, PPCc rarely offer such reductions so now is the time to play hard ball.  Write back and say  them that you will see them in court where you will be seeking costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR27.14(2)(g)

DoaM

As per above ... the £100 "offer" is likely their last throw of the dice before they cancel. (They've realised that you're not "low hanging fruit" and so pursuing you would be a fruitless [pun intended] task).

Coupon-mad

This is unusual and makes me laugh!  no paying it!

 You need to respond and state you won't be paying and there is no debt to discuss. 

Add that none of their replies answered your questions and you wish to see a PARTIALLY REDACTED version of payments made at that machine, so that you can identify if there was indeed a 'simple keying error' that OPS themselves were obliged to have identified.

You quoted the wrong part of the BPA CoP.  I made it cear I suggested you were meant to quote the NEW January BPA CoP at them (yes I know it post dates the event, that is not the point).  I wanted you to quote the new 'keying error' rules at them.

familyguy321

Thanks for your responses and excellent pun @DoaM - I'm definitely not going to bite

@Coupon-mad , is this response ok?

I note your recent correspondence in response to my previous email and a settlement offer of £100.

At no point have I requested for you to disclose information that is sensitive to other people’s data. Several requests have been made to see a partially redacted record of payments made at the machine between the times my vehicle entered and exited so that I can identify if there was indeed a ‘simple keying error’. This is something your client is obliged to have identified. As I’m sure you are aware, the British Parking Association (which your client is a member of) has stated in section 17 of their Code of Practice, “17.3 No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges.” Your client have shown no regard to their responsibility in this case.

As a result, I decline your settlement offer as the alleged contravention did not occur and therefore I deny any debt exists. 

 

familyguy321

Bumping this thread to get some responses to my previous post. Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

British Parking Association (which your client is a member of) has stated in section 17 of their Code of Practice, “17.3 No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges.” Your client have shown no regard to their responsibility in this case.

No, that still the wrong bit.   Quote the new changes about 'keying errors' and what the AOS members are obliged to do, in each case. 

The various CoPs over the years are on the BPA website and there's an update, specially highlighting the changes made in Jan 2020 (and it makes no odds really,  that the PCN was from before then...the BPA CoP is what they should be abiding by and it's perfectly reasonable for a consumer to quote the new 2020 CoP).

familyguy321

Hi @Coupon-mad, thanks for the feedback. I did check the changes and the whole of section 17 is new, I thought the part I had quoted was the relevant bit. Hopefully I have got right this time round.....

I note your recent correspondence in response to my previous email and a settlement offer of £100.

At no point have I requested for you to disclose information that is sensitive to other people’s data. Several requests have been made to see a partially redacted record of payments made at the machine between the times my vehicle entered and exited so that I can identify if there was indeed a ‘simple keying error’. This is something your client is obliged to have identified. The British Parking Association (which your client is a member of) has clearly stated in section 17 of their Code of Practice the obligations of their members in case of a keying error:

“The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas;
A ) Minor Keying Errors
Examples of a minor keying error could include:
0 instead of o.
I instead of L.
1 instead of I
Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped
Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped
 Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)

These are minor errors where up to one character has been entered incorrectly, or where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.

B ) Major Keying Errors
Examples of a major keying error could include:
Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration
Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration
Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)
Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits

In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).

It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.”

Your client have shown no regard to their responsibility to check for a keying error in this case.

As a result, I decline your settlement offer as the alleged contravention did not occur and therefore I deny any debt exists.