Armtrac Stennack Car Park St.Ives

Needhelp45

Redx said:

What does the IPC CoP and guidance state about identified keying errors ?

Thank you,  I can’t see anything specific about keying errors.  The only things I can find in the code of practice that relate to this case are ; 

8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions.

Is issuing a parking charge when the registration number and therefore payment could be identified ‘reasonable’ ? . 

1.5 You must apply for keeper details only where you have ‘reasonable cause’ to do so in accordance with regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002.
If the parking company could identify that a keying error had occurred, they can identify payment had been made, then surely there was no ‘reasonable cause’ to apply for keeper details? 

14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.  

Would knowing that there has been a keying error and still pursuing for a £100 charge be considered predatory ? 

Needhelp45

Le_Kirk said:

Needhelp45 said:

I’m unable to check the signage as we live 5 hours away.  They state that they have photographic evidence we are parked near signage - which they haven’t provided and I don’t believe they have, but it’s a small car park so we wouldn’t have been far away and it’s probably displayed right by the payment machine. 

This is such a well-known bear trap car park that if you search other threads about the same place, another poster might have put up a picture.  Also you could send a couple of PMs to posters who have been caught here to ask them if they have piccy poos.

Many thanks I’ll do that!

Redx

Needhelp45 said:

Redx said:

What does the IPC CoP and guidance state about identified keying errors ?

Thank you,  I can’t see anything specific about keying errors.  The only things I can find in the code of practice that relate to this case are ; 

8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions.

Is issuing a parking charge when the registration number and therefore payment could be identified ‘reasonable’ ? . 

1.5 You must apply for keeper details only where you have ‘reasonable cause’ to do so in accordance with regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002.
If the parking company could identify that a keying error had occurred, they can identify payment had been made, then surely there was no ‘reasonable cause’ to apply for keeper details? 

14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.  

Would knowing that there has been a keying error and still pursuing for a £100 charge be considered predatory ? 

The IPC issued guidance about keying errors a few years ago , look it up !

Coupon-mad

They did, but it was wishy washy IMHO.. Current advice is to try IAS anyway because the PPC might not bother to contest it and because if they later try a small claim you will appear more than reasonable.

As you say, they can attribute that payment to your car and the pursuit of the charge now has no 'legitimate interest'.  Ss such, the ParkingEye v Beavis case is fully distinguished and they would lose in court for unfairly punishing a driver.  That's punitive and unrecoverable as well as unfair under the CRA 2015.

You can use the draft Appeals Charter that was published by the Government in the Technical Consultation about private parking charges this August.  Point to that as 'best practice' and use it as evidence for the IAS (and court) that Armtrsc are being wholly unreasonable and should have cancelled the charge or maybe asked for a nominal £12 to cover admin.

You are likely to lose at IAS but try it for the LOLs and to look reasonable, and to show your hand as someone who isn't going to roll over and pay. 

Chances are, Armtrac may decide to move on to less robust victims.

Needhelp45

Redx said:

Needhelp45 said:

Redx said:

What does the IPC CoP and guidance state about identified keying errors ?

Thank you,  I can’t see anything specific about keying errors.  The only things I can find in the code of practice that relate to this case are ; 

8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions.

Is issuing a parking charge when the registration number and therefore payment could be identified ‘reasonable’ ? . 

1.5 You must apply for keeper details only where you have ‘reasonable cause’ to do so in accordance with regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002.
If the parking company could identify that a keying error had occurred, they can identify payment had been made, then surely there was no ‘reasonable cause’ to apply for keeper details? 

14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.  

Would knowing that there has been a keying error and still pursuing for a £100 charge be considered predatory ? 

The IPC issued guidance about keying errors a few years ago , look it up !

Thank you.  I can’t see anything in the IPC code of practise, but something was added to the BPAs.  I’ve now found reference to it elsewhere on their website;
 
‘The IPC’s GET YOUR REG RIGHT campaign will also be directed towards parking operators to encourage more tolerance of motorists making the right mistake or other minor typographical errors. Examples include when a motorist mistakenly inputs a ‘0’ instead of an ‘O’ etc. In a similar way, the campaign aims to raise awareness among equipment manufacturers and encourage more user-friendly parking payment machines to minimise such typographical issues

But no actual guidance to parking operators. 

FrankCannon

https://www.getyourregright.info/

Needhelp45

Coupon-mad said:

They did, but it was wishy washy IMHO.. Current advice is to try IAS anyway because the PPC might not bother to contest it and because if they later try a small claim you will appear more than reasonable.

As you say, they can attribute that payment to your car and the pursuit of the charge now has no 'legitimate interest'.  Ss such, the ParkingEye v Beavis case is fully distinguished and they would lose in court for unfairly punishing a driver.  That's punitive and unrecoverable as well as unfair under the CRA 2015.

You can use the draft Appeals Charter that was published by the Government in the Technical Consultation about private parking charges this August.  Point to that as 'best practice' and use it as evidence for the IAS (and court) that Armtrsc are being wholly unreasonable and should have cancelled the charge or maybe asked for a nominal £12 to cover admin.

You are likely to lose at IAS but try it for the LOLs and to look reasonable, and to show your hand as someone who isn't going to roll over and pay. 

Chances are, Armtrac may decide to move on to less robust victims.

Many thanks I’ll look into those and cobble something together for an appeal.  Is it worth staying that if the payment was  so readily attributable to the vehicle, they’ve requested registered keeper data without reasonable cause? Breaking the IPC code of practise and the law presumably? 

Coupon-mad

Yes say that but be aware the IAS is self serving, funded by the PPCs, has shown itself (from all accounts over the years) to be a farce and won't agree.

Treat this as a practice for your defence if Armtrac try a claim later on, and cross your fingers they are too busy to bother with contesting it and that they might just bow out at IAS stage.

You may want to crib something from this Defendant who is writing a defence re a similar issue:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78721340/#Comment_78721340

If they don't, well "so what"!  Your defence will have been consistent and you can (later, in any phone court hearing, which is no more scary than IAS but far more fair) paint a picture of unreasonableness.

After all, this is an AOS member who is and has been since 2020, fully aware of the Government's Appeals Charter proposals, knew all along about the direction of travel in terms of best practice (used to be in the BPA and will undoubtedly have seen their best practice policy about keying errors, never mind the IPC's wishy washy guudance) and is merely seeking to punish a known paying patron on a technicality that should never waste the courts' precious time.

KeithP

FrankCannon said:

https://www.getyourregright.info/

Yes, and for those in doubt...

Hover over Frequently Asked Questions and click on About Us to see...

Needhelp45

Coupon-mad said:

Yes say that but be aware the IAS is self serving, funded by the PPCs, has shown itself (from all accounts over the years) to be a farce and won't agree.

Treat this as a practice for your defence if Armtrac try a claim later on, and cross your fingers they are too busy to bother with contesting it and that they might just bow out at IAS stage.

You may want to crib something from this Defendant who is writing a defence re a similar issue:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78721340/#Comment_78721340

If they don't, well "so what"!  Your defence will have been consistent and you can (later, in any phone court hearing, which is no more scary than IAS but far more fair) paint a picture of unreasonableness.

After all, this is an AOS member who is and has been since 2020, fully aware of the Government's Appeals Charter proposals, knew all along about the direction of travel in terms of best practice (used to be in the BPA and will undoubtedly have seen their best practice policy about keying errors, never mind the IPC's wishy washy guudance) and is merely seeking to punish a known paying patron on a technicality that should never waste the courts' precious time.

Brilliant thank you!