POPLA appeal lost - evidence pack?

CharlieTHX

Hi,

I received a PCN from Premier Park (PP) after I incorrectly entered my VRN.  Fortunately I kept the ticket and appealed to POPLA as I hadn't overstayed and naively imagined POPLA would find in my favour.

However they didn't so I'm just going to wait to see if Premier Park want to proceed to court.  In the meantime am I correct in thinking that PP should have sent me a copy of the evidence pack that they sent to POPLA?

If so I was thinking of complaining to the BPA and wondered if you clever people could help me draft that complaint?

Redx

No , you should have been able to login to popla and download the evidence pack after receiving a popla email stating the PP evidence pack had been uploaded

Any BPA complaint should be in regards to keying errors so read the Jan 2020 BPA CoP and the relevant section

Fruitcake

How big was the VRM error? Assuming the alleged event occurred this year, some errors should not attract a PCN at all whereas some should only result in a £20 charge (still too much in my opinion).


What happened when you complained to the landowner? Where did the alleged event occur?

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?

beamerguy

POPLA is now more junkie than your local rubbish tip.   Doubt they know what day it is.

No problem. you could complain the both BPA and POPLA, BUT BOTH are old dinosaurs not fit for purpose
You will now start getting silly debt collectors who write rubbish and tell lies and you IGNORE their crap.
This industry is so stupid that even though you have proof, companies like Premier will then tell one of their barking mad legals to contact you and that's when you come back here and we can start the process of getting them spanked .... easy really

CharlieTHX

Thank you for your replies, would the 'evidence pack' simply be the operator information and evidence (pasted below) that I can view on the POPLA site?  I ask because on the day in question when I attempted to enter my VRN the 'L' key was unresponsive so I was unable complete my registration.  PP has claimed in their 'other evidence' that their logs show the letter L being used by other drivers before and after my stay but those logs are not available for me to see on the POPLA site.  Therefore they have supplied evidence to POPLA but not to me?  It is my intention to write to my MP now that the appeal has failed.

-------------

The signage on site clearly states ‘Please pay for your stay’ and ‘Please enter the full, correct registration details at the payment terminal, of the vehicle you are parking’. The Appellant has not denied seeing the signage. We cannot be held liable for the Appellant failing to see, or ignoring, the signage. The Appellant has provided evidence of their payment to both Premier Park and POPLA, however, we would advise that this clearly shows that the Appellant paid for ‘xxx’ rather than their vehicle registration ‘xxxxxxx’. Therefore, we were unable to allocate the payment made, to the vehicle parked. Please see ‘Other Evidence’.

However, as the Appellant provided evidence of a payment, albeit for an incorrect registration, we reduced the PCN to £20.00, for 14 days, as a gesture of goodwill. The Appellant declined this offer, and chose to make an appeal to POPLA instead. The reduced payment offer has since expired and the PCN remains outstanding at the full amount of £100.00. As stated on the PCN and denied response, if an appeal to POPLA is made and POPLA find in our favour or the Appellant withdraws, the full amount of £100.00 will be due.

For the Appellant to have paid for the incorrect vehicle registration, the Appellant would have mistyped it into the keyboard on the machine. Payment with coins is made by entering your full registration number, press the green tick button, insert the coins for the amount of time the vehicle will be parked, press the green tick to confirm the amount of time paid for is correct, and then take receipt. Therefore, the Appellant inputted and validated an incorrect vehicle registration. This would have been apparent at the time of purchase and could have been corrected. The Appellant could have pressed the orange back button to delete the digits and begin again or could have pressed the red cross to reset the machine back to the beginning. Alternatively, once the receipt had printed, the Appellant could have purchased an additional ticket for the full and correct vehicle registration.

The Appellant did not correct the payment and remained parked on site with an invalid ticket. Therefore, they agreed to comply with the terms and conditions. In the POPLA Annual Report 2018 the lead adjudicator stated that where the terms are clear that the motorists must enter their full and correct registration into the machine it is plain that a parking contract has formed between the motorist and the Operator. On these occasions, we reduce the amount payable to £20.00 as a gesture of goodwill. The amount is not reduced because we have made an error in issuing, more the fact that we can see the motorist has made payment for a partial registration and although they have not fully complied with the terms and conditions, we reduce the charge to cover the costs we have incurred due to the motorists error.

The updates to the BPA Code of Practice, in regards to ‘Keying Errors’ state: 17.1 Technology is being used more and more by parking providers as an aid to car park management. Irrespective of whether a parking facility is off-street or on-street, the increased use of technology will often require a motorist to correctly enter their vehicle registration at a pay and display machine, parking kiosk or at a validation terminal inside the location in instances where parking is offered at a reduced rate or free of charge. and 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. We have provided motorists with ample methods to make payments for their parking sessions, this includes 4 payment machines situated on site and the pay by phone service, RingGo, which allows payment to be made via phone, text, online or App. These services were all available for the Appellant to use on the date of the contravention. We cannot be held liable for the Appellant’s failure to utilise the available payment methods to ensure they had complied with the advertised terms and conditions of parking.

Alternatively, if unsure at any point, the Appellant could have contacted Premier Park at any point, our telephone number Is detailed on the signage. We can confirm we hold no record of receiving any contact regarding the Appellant’s vehicle registration on this date. Whilst we note the Appellant’s evidence, we must advise that this does not constitute proof that the vehicle was authorised to remain on site without adhering to the clearly displayed terms and conditions of parking. We have enclosed evidence from our back-office which shows that other motorists were able to enter and pay for their full vehicle registrations on this date, including whilst the Appellant’s vehicle remained on site.

Therefore, the machines on site were working correctly on this date. Please see ‘Other Evidence’. The Appellant has appealed on the grounds of mitigating circumstances. As per POPLA FAQ’s If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but cannot enforce it. In the Annual report of 2018, the lead adjudicator for POPLA advised that although some decisions are tough because the motorist has presented mitigating circumstances, it is unlikely that this will provide grounds for POPLA to allow the appeal. When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it.

There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. 13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The vehicle remained on site for 56 minutes no payment made for the full, correct registration of the vehicle parked. Therefore, a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the appeal be refused.

Redx

Yes , that is the correct procedure and that was their evidence pack , probably had various docs and pics attached as well , like signage etc

Popla would have emailed you to say the evidence was there for you to view and given you 7 days to reply

PP do not send it to you , so nothing to complain about if that is your query ?
The pack is never sent to the appellant

Seems to me that PP failed the minor keying error stated in the latest BPA CoP , hence why I said complain to the BPA about it , bearing in mind that it should have been your first appeal point in your popla appeal

CharlieTHX

Thank you again for your prompt replies.  The point I'm making is that the only 'evidence' I can view if I log into POPLA is the text from PP that I pasted above.  There are no pictures or machine logs to view whereas POPLA seemed to have been able to view those logs?

nosferatu1001

How do you know popla had sight? Or are you assuming?
the ppc could have just said it was all ok and popla agreed and did t question that assertion. 

Redx

Then complain to John Gallagher , the main popla adjudicator
 , If Popla saw those machine logs and read the BPA CoP , they should have ruled in your favour based on the CoP

You asked about a BPA complaint , that should be about non compliance with the BPA CoP , not Popla , because the Minor keying error is in the new CoP , so no PCN should have been issued

In the evidence text above , PP wrote a long piece about this and about section 17 of the new CoP , plus they offered the £20 in reply to your appeal , so it's clear that they knew about it because they commented on it

You also asked if PP should have sent the evidence pack to you direct ?  , the answer is no , definitely not

Fruitcake

Then complain to PoPLA and the BPA that you were not able to view all the scammer's evidence and therefore were unable to rebut any of it.

I suggest you get into the habit of redacting personal data such as your VRM. Whilst it may not matter now, a person or persons unknown could use it and any other personal data with malice aforethought.

Please also break up PoPLA's wall of text with a few paragraphs.

D_P_Dance

Many judges regard incorrect VRN log ins as a very trifling matter, not a real breach of contract at all, and a waste of court time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.