POPLA appeal unsuccessful over bizarre keying error claim

sulky_lizard

Hi guys, thank you SO much for all your help and responses. Extremely helpful and enlightening, and too kind! 
So, the unanimous verdict here is that we shouldn't bow down and pay this nonsensical fine. Just wondering, should we notify the parking operator of this (because I've written a great response), or do we just literally stay schtum and do NOTHING?
Happy to paste the reply I've drafted, because obviously what POPLA has now disclosed changes everything and makes their claim even more ludicrous.
Thanks once again, folks! 
SL

sulky_lizard

Coupon-mad said:

 My partner recently parked in a car park in Basildon, Essex, owned by Britannia. 

It's not owned by Britannia and the contract they have is likely to be in the wrong Britannia name (a point which wins in court and would have won it for you at POPLA, had you known, as seen in POPLA Decisions).  Please don't ask us to explain, just read the Britannia posts in the past year in POPLA Decisions - it is fully explained. 

Come back at court stage and win.

Many thanks Coupon-mad. I believe you refer to this thread here? I'll take a read and hopefully that strengthens our case/refusal to pay even more!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76936998#Comment_76936998

sulky_lizard

Castle said:

sulky_lizard said:

 Having read through POPLA’s lengthy reply to find out the reason for this rejection, I finally found out – apparently the parking ticket DID print the reg my partner allegedly entered. Except this seven-digit was COMPLETELY different to my partner’s car reg. Every digit was miles out and the pattern bore zero resemblance. I’m talking “DD” instead of “ZX” and “0” instead of “7" kinda out. Needless to say, it’s why we thought the parking ticket hadn’t printed my partner’s reg, which I had clearly explained in our appeal. (Which POPLA chose to ignore). Obviously, this changed everything.

Does this registration number actually exist?

Just checked, and indeed, it does not. Just a series of random gibberish. Does that potentially make a difference?

Umkomaas

Forum advice is always to post up drafts before firing them off. There are so many opportunities for motorists to mess up with an ill-phrased sentence that potentially scuppers any case they might have had. 

sulky_lizard

Here's a draft of a response. I've already cut out some of the sarcasm, I may need to trim back a little more...

Greetings Parking Operating Scammer!

 I am writing in response to my case (xxx), for which my appeal to POPLA was deemed unsuccessful, thanks to some astonishing incompetence.

 As a result of the POPLA appeal, it has now been disclosed that the registration you believe I entered was xxxx. My car registration is xxx. Every digit is MILES out. Even the pattern does not bore any resemblance. It is so radically different I was convinced that my parking ticket had not printed a car reg at all, as described in my appeal.

 But no, the xxx on my ticket WAS in fact a registration number! It would have been very helpful if you could have clarified that in my original appeal rather than sending me many paragraphs of waffle that is irrelevant to this individual case.

 With this new light, your claim against me is absurd, and the fault is clearly a machine error – or at worse, a scam. It defies logic that a sane, sober person with the mental capacity to drive and park a car would have entered their car reg so horrendously wrong. I could excuse myself two mistakes on a bad day, maybe, but all seven?!?

 Furthermore, the subsequent evidence you provided to POPLA appeared to show that a registration matching my car reg with only one digit out (xxx instead of xxx) was entered exactly one hour later. For some reason, POPLA ignored that as worthy of consideration or investigation.

Finally, I should perhaps mention that having researched previous disputes, I am now doubtful whether you even have landowner authority to issue PCNs for the parking area in question. It is my understanding that you have a contract with a company different to the one specified by the landowner. According to my findings, the landowner contract only authorises a Limited company called Britannia Parking SERVICES Ltd, company number 08187238. The correspondence we’ve received from you is addressed the Britannia Parking Group Limited, company number 08182990. 

 I bought a parking ticket under good faith, and my parking stay was more than adequately covered for. You’re welcome to pursue this in the courts but the claim that I made such a major keying error as since flagged by POPLA is bizarre and nonsensical, and a possible scam. For your information, I will also be reporting this to the local MP.

 Thank you so much for reading.

 Regards

Le_Kirk

Not sure what you are hoping to gain (as much as I like the letter) but they are unlikely to climb down until a judge tells them to; hope I am wrong!  If you do decide to send it a couple of changes for you.

Even the pattern does not bore bear any resemblance.

I am now doubtful whether that you even have landowner authority to issue PCNs for the parking area in question.

I bought a parking ticket under in good faith,

KeithP

Perhaps your paragraph starting "Finally..." would be better as...

Finally, I should perhaps mention that having researched previous disputes, I now know that you have no landowner authority to issue PCNs for the parking area in question. When parking, if the motorist entered into a contract with anyone it was with the company named on the signs. The signs clearly state that the motorist is contracting with a Limited company called Britannia Parking SERVICES Ltd, company number 08187238. The company called Britannia Parking Group Limited, with a company number of 08182990, is a stranger to any contract that may have been in made.

Having said that, I wonder if it is a good idea to disclose that at this time?
It might be sensible to wait until the wrong entity sues you before saying "Haha, Wrong claimant. I owe you nothing"..

Wait and see what others think.

sulky_lizard

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure what you are hoping to gain (as much as I like the letter) but they are unlikely to climb down until a judge tells them to; hope I am wrong!  If you do decide to send it a couple of changes for you.

Even the pattern does not bore bear any resemblance.

I am now doubtful whether that you even have landowner authority to issue PCNs for the parking area in question.

I bought a parking ticket under in good faith,

Thanks Le Kirk.
What I'm hoping to achieve is that the operator can see it's a lost cause and pointless taking it to court. I'm fairly sure my partner doesn't want the stress and hassle of a court date. Her job is stressful enough as it is! I would imagine if they take it to court, they genuinely think they have a strong chance of victory.
But also, as per my earlier post, I was asking whether you notify the operator of your intention not to pay, or do you just ignore the endless threatening letters that arrive in the post? And is there not a danger you could even have debt collectors knocking on your door? It does make me nervous they have our home address.
Thanks

KeithP

And is there not a danger you could even have debt collectors knocking on your door?

There is absolutely no risk of that.

Umkomaas

I'm fairly sure my partner doesn't want the stress and hassle of a court date. 

Exactly what they want to hear, the ideal victim, harass and intimidate with threats of court, and out pops a cheque. It's their very business model for those who don't stump up immediately. 

No matter what you write, your partner's details will be loaded into the sausage machine and, in due course, out will spew debt collector letters, more than likely solicitor's letters and possibly followed by a court claim. The snowball is already rolling down the hill, with little likelihood of being able to stop it, unless/until it gets to court. 

You have a strong case and they may not get as far as a court hearing, but they're likely to push you almost all the way (and you have to jump each of their hurdles to avoid a potential CCJ), then, as many are doing, discontinue a few days before the hearing.

That's the way it is I'm afraid.