Incorrect Registration

green_oli

Hello,

I am really grateful that I have come across this forum – very useful thanks. I received a postal NTK from SIP Parking (IPC member) for “vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded” so I followed the Newbies post, copied the appeal template and also emailed my MP (awaiting response).

A valid parking ticket was in fact purchased and was sent to them in the first appeal. It was also explained that an incorrect registration was keyed in error. They have chosen to ignore the evidence provided and rejected my first appeal. I am not surprised my first appeal was rejected and as expected was given the option to appeal to IAS. I understand the general consensus is that they’re a kangaroo court and not to bother unless in some rare circumstances.  I was wondering whether my situation qualifies and should I appeal to IAS or not? I thought under the new code of practice, they would have cancelled it or at least charged a lesser admin fee for the major keying error?

Apologies for posting here before court stage but any advice would be appreciated, thank you.

Coupon-mad

For this scenario, and because COVID might mean that SIP are too short staffed to faff around replying endlessly to your evidence, I would try IAS and provide proof of the keying error (was it minor, just a missing digit, and was it caused by the machine's sticky keys, perhaps?).

green_oli

Thank you, Coupon-mad for a speedy response. Unfortunately, the incorrect registration keyed in was of our former vehicle sold during the pandemic (with only the first letter of the reg being the same). The vehicle that was parked in SIP car park was only recently purchased few months ago and hardly driven due to the lockdown; so in true auto-pilot mode the old car reg was keyed-in whilst rushing in the rain. Along with the purchased parking ticket, do you recommend sending IAS evidence of my old vehicle road tax and insurance documents for that vehicle reg etc? Thanks.
Coupon-mad said:

For this scenario, and because COVID might mean that SIP are too short staffed to faff around replying endlessly to your evidence, I would try IAS and provide proof of the keying error (was it minor, just a missing digit, and was it caused by the machine's sticky keys, perhaps?).

Le_Kirk

green_oli said:

Thank you, Coupon-mad for a speedy response. Unfortunately, the incorrect registration keyed in was of our former vehicle sold during the pandemic (with only the first letter of the reg being the same). ..............
Coupon-mad said:

For this scenario, and because COVID might mean that SIP are too short staffed to faff around replying endlessly to your evidence, I would try IAS and provide proof of the keying error (was it minor, just a missing digit, and was it caused by the machine's sticky keys, perhaps?).

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

D_P_Dance

A judge is likely to take a very dim view of that, encourage them to give one the opportunity.  Have you contacted your MP?

fisherjim

Le_Kirk said:

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

An excellent point, the PPC's bleat on about their wonderful technology, Parking Eye brag about their multi point checks, and the whole sorry bunch of them claim rarely to make a mistake, but it would be the simplest of things to write into the programme a database check of VRN's on site and reject an unknown registration at key in.

MothballsWallet

fisherjim said:

Le_Kirk said:

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

An excellent point, the PPC's bleat on about their wonderful technology, Parking Eye brag about their multi point checks, and the whole sorry bunch of them claim rarely to make a mistake, but it would be the simplest of things to write into the programme a database check of VRN's on site and reject an unknown registration at key in.

As a computer programmer myself, I always replace "programme" with "program" in that context when I see it

Le_Kirk

MothballsWallet said:

fisherjim said:

Le_Kirk said:

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

An excellent point, the PPC's bleat on about their wonderful technology, Parking Eye brag about their multi point checks, and the whole sorry bunch of them claim rarely to make a mistake, but it would be the simplest of things to write into the programme a database check of VRN's on site and reject an unknown registration at key in.

As a computer programmer myself, I always replace "programme" with "program" in that context when I see it

I used to be a programmer (amongst other things) but I am all right now!  When I have previously used "program" in the correct place it used to show up as an incorrectly spelled word or people used to moan.. The spell checker is OK now and I am not sure if people moan as I stopped using it - but you are of course quite correct!

green_oli

D_P_Dance said:

A judge is likely to take a very dim view of that, encourage them to give one the opportunity.  Have you contacted your MP?

Hiya, yes I have contacted my MP - still awaiting a reply. I also contacted our local Cllr whose response today was this:

"I believe this would be a private / civil matter and I would advise that you seek legal advice on this. This is for two reasons, one the matter happened outside our District and secondly, that the company that issued this potentially unwarranted fine, is in fact a private company. Therefore I would take it that the issue occurred on private land? Correct me if I am wrong. However, and for example, if you have proof that the parking space is owned by xxx Council but they have hired a private parking company to oversee parking issues etc then we can refer the matter to xxx Council for further investigation. Let me know what you wish to do."

green_oli

Le_Kirk said:

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

That is a very good point. Do you think I should mention that in my appeal to IAS along with Fisherjim's comment about having a database check of VRN's on-site and reject an unknown registration at key-in?

Umkomaas

green_oli said:

Le_Kirk said:

Why were you allowed to try to buy a ticket/pay for paring for a car that was not in the car park?  The car park has ANPR so they know which cars are in there.  Oh, I know, because they wouldn't make any money that way!!!!!!

That is a very good point. Do you think I should mention that in my appeal to IAS along with Fisherjim's comment about having a database check of VRN's on-site and reject an unknown registration at key-in?

Put it in, which means the PPC will need to respond to the IAS - the more they have to do at a time when staff may be in short supply, might mean them giving up - but as a freestanding winning appeal point, that's unlikely.  Only 5% of motorists actually win at the IAS. The other 'successes' are where the IAS persuade their paymasters to drop the case, or where the PPC doesn't respond at all to the IAS appeal.