Euro Car Parks - Matilda Street, Sheffield

applesponge

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove #2, 4, 6 and 7 because they won't win and might distract the assessor.  No point talking about not knowing who was driving if the NTK was a POFA one.

Any chance it was simply a VRM typo?  Did you pay for the FULL time shown on site or is this about a few minutes overstay?

If it isn't an overstay then it must be a keying error (there is no other scenario) and you should state that and say the operator has made no effort to check for a keying error.

As such, a 'whitelist lookup' would be meaningless evidence because you can only think their old keypad failed and what they needed to do was to check for near miss VRMs and cancel the PCN if a simple keying error was discovered, or offer £20 if a major keying error was discovered.

The operator has done neither and there was no overstay, so the only evidence that POPLA and this appellant expect to see in this regard is a full set of payment logs relating to this site, showing partially redacted VRMs that divulge sufficient digits to identify any close match.

NB: you haven't got 2 cars have you? Could the driver have typed in the other car's VRM?  If so, state the other car's VRM here and ask that the operator also checks for that VRM matching a £3 payment and offers the £20 settlement required by the BPA CoP.

Thanks for your comment Coupon-mad

I thought part of this stage was to make appeals pretty long, in order to convince the operator to drop the charge? As such, would it be worth keeping 2, 4, 6, 7 in but moving them to the bottom of the document?

The full and correct amount was paid with no overstay, so I suppose you're right that it must be a keying error - thanks for pointing that out. I'll add in the bits you say around this when I finish work 

Coupon-mad

I really think it is better to remove the dross and make it easier for the Assessors, who are not legally trained. Lead the horse to water and try to make it drink, too!  Spoon feed POPLA.

Your first point is that, given payment was made and was evidenced, the operator could and should have interrogated the machine logs and payments made by all methods in the time the car was there, to look for a keying error because that is the only explanation.  In fact, they are obliged by the BPA to carry out manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs at all.

There is no evidence the operator did so and a 'whitelist look-up' will not be and never is good evidence in a keying error scenario (carry on with my wording from earlier!).

applesponge

Coupon-mad said:

I really think it is better to remove the dross and make it easier for the Assessors, who are not legally trained. Lead the horse to water and try to make it drink, too!  Spoon feed POPLA.

Your first point is that, given payment was made and was evidenced, the operator could and should have interrogated the machine logs and payments made by all methods in the time the car was there, to look for a keying error because that is the only explanation.  In fact, they are obliged by the BPA to carry out manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs at all.

There is no evidence the operator did so and a 'whitelist look-up' will not be and never is good evidence in a keying error scenario (carry on with my wording from earlier!).

Thanks Coupon-mad. I have removed the sections you called out and re-ordered the remaining in a new document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d-tgm13DZF0o_RVtyDcT_OKnN_XeRgvWQ69F7bdOnq0/edit#heading=h.7c4y70doqjup 

This is what I've now got on #1:


1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator

Despite the poor quality, legibility, position and lighting of the car park’s signage (to be discussed in appeal point 2), payment of £3.00 was made via one of the machines in the Matilda Street car park, in exchange for the privilege of being able to park for all of XX hours XX minutes. Proof of this payment can be seen in Figure 11, and was shared with Euro Car Parks Ltd (henceforth ‘ECP’ or ‘the operator’) during my first appeal on 22/10/2021.

Figure 11: Proof of payment being taken for the parking period in question

Let’s compare the above proof of payment to ECP’s own picture of the signage at the Matilda Street car park (Figure 12).

Figure 12: ECP’s own image of apparent signage at Matilda Street car park (NB: this image was taken by the operator, not the appellant. This image does not show the same lighting and weather conditions as applicable to the alleged contravention, nor does it include any information as to when it was taken)

I will not get into the quality of the signage again, as this is discussed in length in appeal point 2, however I will politely point out that the quality of the image provided by ECP is almost as poor as the quality of the sign itself - presumably the image is so fuzzy as they have had to zoom in, because the sign is so high and inaccessible.

If one squints hard enough at the above image, it can be gleaned that the evening rate is £3, when parking between 16:00 and 09:00. 

The alleged contravention took place between 20:14:53 and 22:53:22 on 23/09/2021. As such, a payment of £3 (as evidenced in Figure 11) is correct - the vehicle entered after 16:00, and left well before 09:00 the following morning.

According to the signage in Figure 12, there are only two possible ways for a figure of £3.00 to be reached - either the evening rate, as discussed above, or for a parking period of up to 3 hours on a Sunday. The date of the alleged contravention, 23/09/2021, was a Thursday, and as such option 2 should be impossible to configure via the payment machines at the Matilda Street car park. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only way the payment in Figure 12 could have been reached was by navigating to the ‘evening’ rate. 

Given that full payment was made and evidenced, the operator could and should have interrogated their machine logs and payments made by all methods in and around the time that the vehicle was deemed to be in the car park. The operator could and should look not only for the vehicle registration mark (VRM) as displayed on the NtK (XXXX XXX), but also for near miss VRMs in case the registration plate was inputted incorrectly. As it stands, ECP have made no effort to check for either simple or major keying errors, despite the fact that they are obliged by the BPA to carry out these sort of manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs.

I require ECP to provide a full set of payment logs relating to this site, showing partially redacted VRMs that divulge sufficient digits to identify any close match.

Additionally, I request that the operator runs a separate check on the VRM XXXX XXX with a matching £3 payment on the date in question. The individual who made the payment has access to multiple vehicles, and as such there is a possibility that they entered the wrong registration plate in paying for the parking session. If a matching record is found, I would expect the operator to offer the £20 settlement required by the BPA Code of Practice.

I also require ECP to demonstrate that the calibration of the machines is correct, in order to prove that the payment made (Figure 11) was not incorrectly attributed to the wrong date, time or location.

Coupon-mad

You haven't mentioned the 'whitelist lookup' issue, to stop POPLA being fooled by that. 

And I'd add to the title of point #1:

1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.  There was no overstay and no breach.  The appellant can only conclude there must have been a 'keying error' but the operator has failed to evidence that any checks were made for this and no keying error settlement was offered.

applesponge

Coupon-mad said:

You haven't mentioned the 'whitelist lookup' issue, to stop POPLA being fooled by that. 

And I'd add to the title of point #1:

1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.  There was no overstay and no breach.  The appellant can only conclude there must have been a 'keying error' but the operator has failed to evidence that any checks were made for this and no keying error settlement was offered.

That's my mistake - I thought you were telling me a whitelist lookup is nonsense, not suggesting I put it in the appeal!

Have now added this in (updates in bold):

1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.  There was no overstay and no breach. The appellant can only conclude there must have been a 'keying error' but the operator has failed to evidence that any checks were made for this and no keying error settlement was offered

Despite the poor quality, legibility, position and lighting of the car park’s signage (to be discussed in appeal point 2), payment of £3.00 was made via one of the machines in the Matilda Street car park, in exchange for the privilege of being able to park for all of XX hours XX minutes. Proof of this payment can be seen in Figure 11, and was shared with Euro Car Parks Ltd (henceforth ‘ECP’ or ‘the operator’) during the appellant’s first appeal on 22/10/2021.

Figure 11: Proof of payment being taken for the parking period in question

Let’s compare the above proof of payment to ECP’s own picture of the signage at the Matilda Street car park (Figure 12).

Figure 12: ECP’s own image of apparent signage at Matilda Street car park (NB: this image was taken by the operator, not the appellant. This image does not show the same lighting and weather conditions as applicable to the alleged contravention, nor does it include any information as to when it was taken)

I will not get into the quality of the signage again, as this is discussed in length in appeal point 2, however I will politely point out that the quality of the image provided by ECP is almost as poor as the quality of the sign itself – presumably the image is so fuzzy as they have had to zoom in, because the sign is so high and inaccessible.

If one squints hard enough at the above image, it can be gleaned that the evening rate is £3, when parking between 16:00 and 09:00. 

The alleged contravention took place between 20:14:53 and 22:53:22 on 23/09/2021. As such, a payment of £3 (as evidenced in Figure 11) is correct – the vehicle entered after 16:00, and left well before 09:00 the following morning.

According to the signage in Figure 12, there are only two possible ways for a figure of £3.00 to be reached – either the evening rate, as discussed above, or for a parking period of up to 3 hours on a Sunday. The date of the alleged contravention (23/09/2021) was a Thursday, and as such option 2 should be impossible to configure via the payment machines at the Matilda Street car park. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only way the payment in Figure 12 could have been reached was by navigating to the ‘evening’ rate. 

With all of the above taken into account, given that payment was made and evidenced, and the timelines confirmed by ECP’s own NtK, it is clear that there was no overstay and no breach. The appellant can only conclude, therefore, that there must have been a ‘keying error’. With this in mind, the operator could and should have interrogated their machine logs and payments made by all methods in and around the time that the vehicle was deemed to be in the car park. The operator could and should look not only for the vehicle registration mark (VRM) as displayed on the NtK (XXXX XXX), but also for near miss VRMs in case the registration plate was inputted incorrectly. As it stands, ECP have made no effort to check for either simple or major keying errors, despite the fact that they are obliged by the BPA to carry out these sort of manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs. 

A ‘whitelist’ lookup will not be, and never is, good evidence in a keying error scenario. As such, I require ECP to provide a full set of payment logs relating to this site, showing partially redacted VRMs that divulge sufficient digits to identify any close match.

Additionally, I request that the operator runs a separate check on the VRM XXXX XXX with a matching £3 payment on the date in question. The individual who made the payment has access to multiple vehicles, and as such there is a possibility that they entered the wrong registration plate in paying for the parking session. If a matching record is found, I would expect the operator to offer the £20 settlement required by the BPA Code of Practice.

I also require ECP to demonstrate that the calibration of the machines is correct, in order to prove that the payment made (Figure 11) was not incorrectly attributed to the wrong date, time or location.

Jenni_D

despite the fact that they are obliged by the BPA (in section XX of the code of practice) to carry out these sort of manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs

Add in the relevant section - lead the POPLA assessor by the nose (as already mentioned). Make sure you're referencing the correct version of the CoP (which will be the latest based on the PCN dates etc).

PS - you might want to renumber your figures so that they flow with the appeal point numbers ... Figure 11 in Point 1 doesn't make sense.

applesponge

Thanks Jenni_D - figures and BPA references updated:

1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.  There was no overstay and no breach. The appellant can only conclude there must have been a 'keying error' but the operator has failed to evidence that any checks were made for this and no keying error settlement was offered

Despite the poor quality, legibility, position and lighting of the car park’s signage (to be discussed in appeal point 2), payment of £3.00 was made via one of the machines in the Matilda Street car park, in exchange for the privilege of being able to park for all of XX hours XX minutes. Proof of this payment can be seen in Figure 1, and was shared with Euro Car Parks Ltd (henceforth ‘ECP’ or ‘the operator’) during the appellant’s first appeal on 22/10/2021.

Figure 1: Proof of payment being taken for the parking period in question

Let’s compare the above proof of payment to ECP’s own picture of the signage at the Matilda Street car park (Figure 2).

Figure 2: ECP’s own image of apparent signage at Matilda Street car park (NB: this image was taken by the operator, not the appellant. This image does not show the same lighting and weather conditions as applicable to the alleged contravention, nor does it include any information as to when it was taken)

I will not get into the quality of the signage again, as this is discussed in length in appeal point 2, however I will politely point out that the quality of the image provided by ECP is almost as poor as the quality of the sign itself – presumably the image is so fuzzy as they have had to zoom in, because the sign is so high and inaccessible.

If one squints hard enough at the above image, it can be gleaned that the evening rate is £3, when parking between 16:00 and 09:00. 

The alleged contravention took place between 20:14:53 and 22:53:22 on 23/09/2021. As such, a payment of £3 (as evidenced in Figure 1) is correct – the vehicle entered after 16:00, and left well before 09:00 the following morning.

According to the signage in Figure 2, there are only two possible ways for a figure of £3.00 to be reached – either the evening rate, as discussed above, or for a parking period of up to 3 hours on a Sunday. The date of the alleged contravention (23/09/2021) was a Thursday, and as such option 2 should be impossible to configure via the payment machines at the Matilda Street car park. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only way the payment in Figure 1 could have been reached was by navigating to the ‘evening’ rate. 

With all of the above taken into account, given that payment was made and evidenced, and the timelines confirmed by ECP’s own NtK, it is clear that there was no overstay and no breach. The appellant can only conclude, therefore, that there must have been a ‘keying error’. 

The BPA Code of Practice (17.4) states that in instances of keying error:

“...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”

Again, I refer you to Figure 1 – it can be proven that the parking event was paid for. With this in mind, the operator could and should have interrogated their machine logs and payments made by all methods in and around the time that the vehicle was deemed to be in the car park. The operator could and should have looked not only for the vehicle registration mark (VRM) as displayed on the NtK (XXXX XXX), but also for near miss VRMs in case the registration plate was inputted incorrectly. Per the BPA Code of Practice (17.4):

“Examples of a minor keying error could include:
0 instead of o.
I instead of L.
1 instead of I
Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped
Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped
Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)”

The BPA Code of Practice (17.4) further states that:

“If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.”

As it stands, ECP have made no effort to check for simple keying errors, despite the fact that proof of payment was shared with them during the initial appeal on 22/10/2021 – and despite the fact that they are obliged by the BPA to carry out these sort of manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs. A ‘whitelist’ lookup will not be, and never is, good evidence in a keying error scenario. 

As such, I require ECP to provide a full set of payment logs relating to this site, showing partially redacted VRMs that divulge sufficient digits to identify any close match. If a simple keying error is identified, I would then expect the PCN to be cancelled immediately (as it should have been before even reaching this stage).

As well as minor keying errors, the BPA Code of Practice (17.4) refers to 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”

Upon further research at the Matilda Street car park (on foot), the appellant has discovered that it is possible to bypass the option to enter a VRM altogether – meaning that valid, paying customers could be finding themselves hit with PCNs because of the poor set up of the operator’s own payment machines. Call me a cynic, but it seems as though this loophole could be purposeful – the operator can ‘have their cake and eat it too’ if they allow customers to pay for their parking, knowing they can easily miss out a step within the operator’s terms and conditions, to then hit them with a £100 fine too. An operator with any morals would close this loophole immediately.

The BPA Code of Practice (17.4) goes on to state:

“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”

Once again, ECP have made no effort to check for major keying errors, despite the fact that they are obliged by the BPA to carry out these sort of manual checks to avoid issuing inappropriate PCNs. A ‘whitelist’ lookup will not be, and never is, good evidence in a keying error scenario. 

As such, I require that the operator runs a separate check on the VRMs XXXX XXX and XXXX XXX with a matching £3 payment on the date in question – these are other vehicles that the individual that made the payment has access to, and as such there is a possibility that they entered the wrong registration plate in paying for the parking session. I also require that the operator share a full set of payment logs for this site for any VRMs which are incomplete, don’t match the expected format of a VRM, or are completely blank.

Per the BPA Code of Practice (17.4):

“...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”

As such, if a record is found in the relevant timeframe, which matches the amount the appellant has proved was paid by an occupant of the vehicle (£3, figure 1), I would expect the operator to offer the £20 settlement required by the BPA Code of Practice (17.4).

Furthermore, I require ECP to demonstrate that the calibration of the machines is correct, in order to prove that the payment made (Figure 1) was not incorrectly attributed to the wrong date, time or location.

Coupon-mad

Very good.  I predict they will offer no contest as I expect this was a VRM typo.

D_P_Dance

Have you considered complaining to Trading Standards?

applesponge

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.  I predict they will offer no contest as I expect this was a VRM typo.

Fingers crossed! 

My appeal as it stands is now:

1. Parking was purchased for the period in question, proof of which was shared with the operator.  There was no overstay and no breach. The appellant can only conclude there must have been a 'keying error' but the operator has failed to evidence that any checks were made for this and no keying error settlement was offered
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

Are there any other points you think I should include, or should I bite the bullet? Ta