Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

Redx

CM is not a mod here, she is a volunteer member who helps out, same as me and you and everyone else , there are NO mods on this forum, never have been

familyguy321

Redx,

You're right, I wouldn't be here if I knew what to do. Thanks for understanding.

And apologies I did not know there weren't any mods. Again, thanks for your help and time CM but it felt like I was being attacked for simply asking if it is worth fighting on.

FG

Redx

no , she wasnt being rude, in fact its the opposite because she was frustrated at you not reading her advice in the NEWBIES thread, and and I do not blame her at all because I feel her pain every day on this forum

see this copy and paste below

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

If the PPC contests the POPLA appeal, they will put on the Portal (and maybe also send to you) their POPLA evidence pack. It is NOT from POPLA not the decision!

This is your chance to comment on the crappy evidence from the scumbags.

YOU REALLY MUST COMMENT, BUT KEEP IT VERY CONCISE TO FIT COMMENTS IN THE PORTAL.

How can I comment on the evidence sent to POPLA, they've written a lot and shown lots of pictures of signs?!

Look through the evidence and find things to rebut - such as the signage being unclear, illegible, sparse/nothing to show how close the car was to a sign.

Or the witness statement/contract being heavily redacted, out of date, not signed by the landowner, or even just that it shows no expiry date (POPLA seem to like that).

Your comments are to rebut the operator's case, blow by blow.

Do not re-write your appeal or call it 'an appeal' or POPLA will not read it.

Examples of evidence 'comments' here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69778312#Comment_69778312

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69835948#Comment_69835948

as she is in the teaching profession, its like the pupil who doesnt know this topic not doing their homework so is being told in no uncertain terms, nothing rude about it

so personally, I feel her frustration daily

if none of us bothered to reply or construct the advice in that NEWBIES thread, what would you do then ? compare her advice above to my reply earlier, snap !!

Coupon-mad

Apologies, I snap under the weight of queries sometimes.

You were asking in the middle of POPLA stage if it's worth continuing, when this is all normal and many people lose at POPLA and still do not pay.

These cases are won in court, later. POPLA is worth a try and I am astonished if people ask at a normal stage if they should suddenly throw in the towel for no reason!

Also there are 5 pages of posts today, somewhere over a hundred new posts to reply to, and keeping up is desperately hard. I was not intending to be rude but have to post & run sometimes and just point people back to where this is already covered.

In fact you have 6 days because the day POPLA got the evidence has gone, and that was day one (today? yesterday?).

Either way, you have a few days and this is a normal comments stage and the NEWBIES thread tells you what to look for. So, start looking at the rubbish they sent and stop being impressed by the number of pages - it's a tedious, messy and probably badly argued & evidenced template they roll out and edit for everyone!

familyguy321

Thanks for the advice both. I will get on it and look at each line in their response. Will post my rebuttal for review at some point this week. Email from POPLA came through today so I plan to submit by 8th at latest.

P.s. keep up the great work you do on the forum.

FG

KeithP

familyguy321 wrote: »

Email from POPLA came through today so I plan to submit by 8th at latest.

If I were you, I would make that '7th at the latest'.

They count the day of sending as the first of the seven days.

familyguy321

familyguy321 wrote: »

OPS just submitted their reply on POPLA and attached a load of evidence. Need to respond within 7 days. Can we still fight this?

• The Terms and Conditions of the site have been breached.
• The signage is located upon entry to advise motorists that payment is required to park.
• Within the car park, the payment machine is located which clearly provides instructions on how to make payment for parking and advises “enter your full number plate”.
• The signage advises that a 10-minute grace period is given from entry to the car park to purchase a ticket – this would allow enough time for motorists to park, note down their VRM, and go to the machine to make payment.
• The signage also states, “Your correct registration must be entered into the machine when purchasing a ticket. If you fail to do this your stay will not be authorised.”
• A screenshot taken of the payment session look up (included in evidence) confirms no payment was made against the vehicle registration BK09YYC on 22/03/2019.
• Whilst the appellant may have made payment, if the correct VRM is not entered then the payment has not been made correctly.
• No evidence has been provided by the appellant to evidence a payment being made.
• It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure their vehicle remains in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the site to avoid receiving a Parking Charge Notice “PCN”.
• There are multiple payment machines on site for the motorist to utilise if they were experiencing any difficulty in making payment.
• By remaining on site beyond 10-minutes, the motorist entered into a contract with the car park operator “CPO” and agreed to the terms of the contract, this includes paying the charge of £100.00 in the event of the contract being breached.
• Whilst the motorist has not been identified, the PCN by Post (NTK) has been sent in accordance with PoFA which holds the RK liable, and so, the RK is being held liable in this instance.
• The T&Cs have been breached and so this notice has been issued correctly.

In answer to the attached points specifically -
1. No evidence of this payment has been provided; the VRM look up confirms no payment was made against the full and correct vehicle registration on 22/03/2019.
2. The signage has been audited and approved by the BPA and so the signage meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. One Parking Solution Ltd is a member of the BPA and complies with their CoP in all areas.
3. This statement regarding ANPR and non compliance with the ICO’s CoP is false – there is signage located at the site which details, “When on site, we will capture you details including vehicle registration mark via ANPR, CCTV, or Parking wardens in o0rder to enforce parking terms and conditions.”
4. The Notice to Keeper document meets the strict requirements that must be met for a NTK to be PoFA Compliant – this claim is false and erroneous and we do not believe the appellant is aware what is required for the NTK to be PoFA compliant. The Notice to Keeper document advises the contravention by explaining why the notice has been issued; the notice was issued as the vehicle was parked on private property in breach of the prominently displayed Terms and Conditions. The NTK advises this. The photographic evidence confirms the times the vehicle entered and exited the site to prove how the T&C’s were breached; the time-stamps on the photos confirm the time the vehicle entered and exited the site.

Could someone please review my draft response? Whilst writing the rebuttal, I have tried my best to explain points without letting my anger and frustration at OPS get in the way! I found it difficult to keep to 2000 characters, so have put everything I could think of and will then remove what is not required based on advice here.

One Parking Solution Ltd (OPS) have submitted several points and ‘evidence’ in support of their alleged parking charge. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand. In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 10/06/2019.

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, OPS have not been forthcoming with this information and have so far only provided a screenshot of a search against my exact registration. The records from the machine would clearly show a payment of £1.30 was made that is not matched to a vehicle recorded as present. Furthermore, in their evidence pack, OPS have failed to provide details of when the machine was last serviced by an independent company.

OPS claims that the signage has been audited and approved by the BPA. I will reiterate point 2 of my initial appeal that clearly explains why the signage placed throughout the site fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). I would also like to point out that OPS claim in its response that its car park signage advises that a 10-minute grace period is given from entry to the car park to purchase a ticket. This is false. There is no mention of a 10-minute grace period in any of the signs provided as evidence by OPS. In fact, the filename GS Car Park_Terms and Conditions contains an image of a sign that states, “No waiting and/or idling is permitted anywhere on site”. This is in complete contravention to BPA guidance of giving the driver a grace period.

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. Furthermore, this sign does not state anywhere that the personal data collected will be shared to a third party, in this case ZZPS, who subsequently used the personal data to make a “DVLA referral” on 26/03/2019 for the registered keepers address. This a serious failure to comply with the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

Lastly, in response to OPS’ claim that the Notice to Keeper is complaint, I would refer to point 4 of my original appeal that clearly explains that the NtK does not state the period of parking or provide evidence the that vehicle in question was parked. Only a time of issue of the ticket is seen on the NtK (as can be seen on the submitted evidence) and therefore it fails to comply with POFA 2012.

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

Yours faithfully,
THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Coupon-mad

For a start, remove the entire 1st paragraph, which is superfluous:

One Parking Solution Ltd (OPS) have submitted several points and ‘evidence’ in support of their alleged parking charge. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand. In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 10/06/2019.

And stuff about grace periods is pointless, if the issue wasn't about a few minutes overstay:

I would also like to point out that OPS claim in its response that its car park signage advises that a 10-minute grace period is given from entry to the car park to purchase a ticket. This is false. There is no mention of a 10-minute grace period in any of the signs provided as evidence by OPS. In fact, the filename GS Car Park_Terms and Conditions contains an image of a sign that states, “No waiting and/or idling is permitted anywhere on site”. This is in complete contravention to BPA guidance of giving the driver a grace period.

This is also not relevant, as the car was clearly parked, for the driver to have paid at the machine for parking. And because POPLA do not agree that an OPC NTK is non-POFA just because there's not 'period of parking' on an ANPR-issued NTK:

Lastly, in response to OPS’ claim that the Notice to Keeper is complaint, I would refer to point 4 of my original appeal that clearly explains that the NtK does not state the period of parking or provide evidence the that vehicle in question was parked. Only a time of issue of the ticket is seen on the NtK (as can be seen on the submitted evidence) and therefore it fails to comply with POFA 2012.

Where's their evidence of the landowner contract? That might be worth picking holes in, re the dates and wording instead.

familyguy321

Hi coupon-mad,

Thanks for the very quick response and advice.

I will remove the bits that are not relevant. I didn't mention grace periods in my initial appeal as didn't see the relevance, but did so here as OPS are misleading the assessor by saying it was on the signage (4th bullet in their response).

There was no evidence of landowner contract provided.

Coupon-mad

OPS are misleading the assessor by saying it was on the signage (4th bullet in their response)

It doesn't matter. Forget it. The grace period does not have to be on any signs.

There was no evidence of landowner contract provided.

Then as long as that was in your POPLA appeal, you win, and just need a SINGLE POINT comment about that alone.