One Parking Solution fine/Parking Charge Notice

mikeburtie

I wonder if anyone could provide some help please ? I have been issued a PCN by OPS but I didn't actually park and leave the car - my wife go out and I sat and waited for her in the backstreet where the parking bays are (with the engine running), while she grabbed a coffee to go. So my question is....is there the ability to argue that I didn't actually park the car, but just stopped it or is that just a technicality ? It looks from what I've read that an appeal is pretty pointless so was going to go down the POPLA route, but didn't want to end up paying £100 (rather than the £60 "reduced" charge if the general consensus was that it would be a waste of time). I've not yet responded to the PCN as it was "sent" on 26th November 2020, according to the date on it (they say they have "many pictures", so presumably it could be seen that I never left the vehicle, as I assert). Many thanks for any help provided, Mike    

Redx

It's a moot point , but grace periods is a valid point and is in the BPA CoP 2020 edition

You cannot go to Popla until the RK has appealed to OPS first

So appeal as keeper to OPS using the blue text template from the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum

Then it's go to Popla second when you get a rejection with popla code

No blabbing about who was driving , no talking about the drivers actions , so no talking about the story above

Although plan A is the best option , regardless !! So it's

Complain to landowner
Appeal to OPS
Appeal to Popla

Ps , some people have some strange ideas about the interpretation of the word , parking , good luck with getting a judge to agree with you

Fruitcake

The vehicle was parked. There is no mileage (pun intended) in going down that route.

The Keeper should appeal as already advised, then appeal to PoPLA if/when it is rejected as advised above.
The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not, which is why the driver's identity should not be revealed in this instance.

If ANPR was used there won't be any images of the occupants, and there is no point in waiting any further before appealing.

Check whether the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant. If it wasn't then add a one liner to the appeal template stating that since the NTK was not PoFA compliant then the keeper is not liable, so they should pursue only the driver who will not be named.

Common parking acronyms and abbreviations can be found in the fifth post of the NEWBIES that asks people to read it before posting.

D_P_Dance

 but I didn't actually park and leave the car - my wife go out and I sat and waited for her in the backstreet where the parking bays are 

Whether you left the vehicle or not, whether the engine was running or not, imo that is parking.  

Umkomaas

but I didn't actually park and leave the car - my wife go out and I sat and waited for her in the backstreet where the parking bays are (with the engine running),

From what source do you draw in order to make that definitive statement?  Hopefully it's not Bob the Gob from down the pub, he seems to screw over so many who come here?

Coupon-mad

Yeah, but my guess from the description of the area is that this will be Broadwater Street West, Worthing, and it's OPS.  I doubt the car was even on OPS land and if it was, it would be for 3 minutes.  This is the same as all the other OPS cases - very winnable.

they say they have "many pictures".

...which if course you can view on their website by pretending to pay by card. That's what everyone does, take a look!   It's perfectly safe and you won't be paying a penny even if you lose at POPLA.  If you want me to take a look, as I am a local W Sussex poster who knows about this scam site, send me a pm with a pic of the Notice to Keeper.

mikeburtie

Hi again, I was thinking of just paying the fine within the "reduced/discount period" as otherwise there could be significant additional costs should the challenge not win, but then I read the notes in the thread/Newbie notes again properly and it sounds like the tack to go on is based on grace periods, but when I found a link to just such a case and the response via the "newbie" pages, it appears to be broken, is there any way of getting to it still ? (It appears I'm still too new to post a link, so you'll doubtless be aware it was posted by "MikeHammer" on 29th January 2018 and was entitled POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Submitted - awaiting response - Page 6). Kind regards

mikeburtie

Dear "Coupon-mad", you're absolutely right, that's exactly where the car was, in the backstreet between Starbucks and Halfords and the notice records the waiting time from 9:45:37 and 9:57:44, so the vehicle was stopped for just over 12 minutes in total...

Redx

Send her a PM , do not waste that golden opportunity

beamerguy

PLEASE don't pay a scammer and certainly not OPS.
Instead, take notice of Coupon-mad , she tends to eat OPS before lunch

ParkingMad

This car park?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt
Sunday Times 19 May 2019
Kate Palmer
One Parking Solution’s sucker punch didn’t knock me out

Tracked down via his number plate, a boxing coach had the evidence to fight his corner.

Most mornings, boxing coach Neil Donohue would stop at his favourite coffee shop in Worthing, West Sussex, on his drive to work. Neil, 52, who owns a boxing and bodybuilding gym in nearby Lancing, would regularly leave his vehicle in a six-space private car park operated by One Parking Solution, paying the minimum 50p for a ticket while he popped into Starbucks for five minutes.

And a few days later, more often than not, Neil would get a £100 fine in the post.

One Parking Solution, a private firm, operates CCTV cameras to record the number plates of cars entering and leaving the car park, which included Neil in his Volkswagen Tiguan. In his case, the company would then go onto a government database, lawfully, to find his home address and issue him with a fine for, it claimed, failing to pay and display.

Neil assumed that the fines — 30 in total, which began arriving in 2015 — were a mistake and ignored them, but he did keep all his paper tickets and would staple the relevant one to the notice for each fine. On occasions when the ticket machine was not working, he would print out a picture of the broken dispenser, taken on his phone, storing all the evidence in a folder.

Then he was landed with a bill for £3,000: 30 “unpaid” tickets at £100 a time.

“One Parking’s behaviour is farcical,” said Neil, who has previously contacted Citizens Advice and Trading Standards in an attempt to report the firm.

“If this is happening to me, who else is One Parking doing it to? It could be people more vulnerable than myself.”

Neil’s case highlights again the tactics used by parking firms to chase drivers who claim to have done nothing wrong. Money has been inundated with complaints since we first started shining a light on the industry last year.

In April this year, One Parking Solution raised the stakes by instructing a solicitor and threatening to take Neil to court over four of the unpaid fines, imposed between January and June 2018. Each fine was originally for £100 but One Parking Solution had incurred extra costs, so the total amount being claimed was £463.72 for one fine, relating to January 13, and a combined £695.93 for the other three on April 14, June 1 and June 29.

Neil said this was what he had wanted all along: his day in court with One Parking Solution. “I think it’s a scam,” he said. “The firm knows that hardly anyone keeps their paper ticket — they just throw away the evidence [that they paid].”

Neil wrote to the court asking for a few extra days to prepare his defence, and the parking firm agreed that he had until May to argue his case. On April 23, however, a week earlier than the agreed deadline, One Parking Solution made a request to the court for judgement on its £695.93 claim — without Neil’s knowledge.

“I hit the roof,” said Neil, who only discovered what had happened when he received the judgment against him in the post. “Of course the court found against me — I’d failed to give it any evidence.”

One Parking Solution agreed to withdraw the case after Neil accused the firm of breaking their agreement. The company has now said it will not be pursuing him for the other fines.

Neil is one of nearly 7 million drivers who will have their personal details, including their home address, shared with private parking firms this year.

The DVLA hands out drivers’ details to private parking firms for a £2.50 fee. The companies do not have to provide a reason or prove they are in the right, but they must be registered with either the International Parking Community or the British Parking Association.

The parking companies have been able to buy these details since legal changes were made seven years ago, and the practice has become highly lucrative for them. Industry insiders said that about half of the people issued with the fines — typically for £20 to £100 — tend to pay them without question.

“Private parking companies shouldn’t see motorists as a meal ticket,” said Paul Tilley at solicitors Wannops. “Neil parked in accordance with the rules. He shouldn’t have been ticketed when he went about his business lawfully.”

It is hoped a new parking bill, which became law in March, will stop these companies from profiting from innocent drivers through the creation a code of conduct. If firms break the code, now being drawn up by ministers, they will be blocked from accessing driver details through the DVLA — in effect, putting them out of the business of issuing fines.

It will also prevent firms from issuing fines that imitate the look of official penalty tickets from local authorities or the police — when, in fact, they are merely invoices for alleged breach of contract.

Greg Knight, the Conservative MP who spearheaded the bill, said: “We want the wording of fines to make it clear the parking charge notice is an invoice from a company and not a fait accompli. The new parking code will also, I expect, stop invoices from copying the colour, wording and format of official penalty tickets.”

One Parking said: “The driver had numerous opportunities to correspond with us and provide evidence. He failed to do so.”