Armtrac Stennack Car Park St.Ives

Loobyloo12345

My supposed contravention date was 14th Oct 2021. I know a while after yours but could be a problem with certain keys or a problem with machine that wasnt noticed until people have started to appeal. I most definitely check before tickets are issued that i have keyed my reg correctly and would not ever miss the first 2 letters. This is the first time i have ever received a parking notice. 

Loobyloo12345

The date on my Notice was 1 nov but didnt receive until about the 8th. I appealed straight away by email and got a reply on 16th Nov.

Needhelp45

Loobyloo12345 said:

My supposed contravention date was 14th Oct 2021. I know a while after yours but could be a problem with certain keys or a problems  with machine that wasnt noticed until people have started to appeal. I most definitely check before tickets are issued that i have keyed my reg correctly and would not ever miss the first 2 letters. This is the first time i have ever received a parking notice. 

Brilliant thank you.  believe that Armtrac know the machine is faulty and the reason they dropped your charge was that you denied keying incorrectly and demanded other PCNs issued for the same reason - which if it got to court would show them up to be guilty of predatory practises.  We had no clue why they issued a PCN, so it didn’t form part of our appeal, we just provided evidence of payment. It didn’t cross our minds there could be a VRN issue as the driver has never done this before and it would be completely out of character. 

Needhelp45

Loobyloo12345 said:

The date on my Notice was 1 nov but didnt receive until about the 8th. I appealed straight away by email and got a reply on 16th Nov.

Thanks so much.  We had our 2nd PCN reminder issued on the 16th Nov.  So while they were dropping your PCN, they were still pursuing us for the same reason! I am outlining this in our IAS appeal that I need to submit by the 21st Nov.   Would you be prepared to send me a copy of your appeal letter response from Armtrac to back this up?  Or a statement to this effect?  

Many thanks again

Loobyloo12345

I would be happy to privately but dont know how to send by email as i am not happy to put my email on this forum.

Needhelp45

Thanks so much, that’s understandable.  I’ll private message you.  

Marktheshark

The wrong reg is known as a batton argument.
They introduce it hoping you pick it up and carry it.
In this case i would write to them and place them on notice that you are accusing them openly of knowingly using equipment that is faulty.
You paid for parking.
You can prove you paid for parking and if they think they are owed any contractual charge they should cease all correspondence  over the matter and apply to a county court.
That any correspondence other than a court claim will be charged at £30 a letter to reply to them.
If they do not agree to this issue a court claim.

D_P_Dance

That any correspondence other than a court claim will be charged at £30 .

That old chestnut is a non starter.

Needhelp45

Marktheshark said:

The wrong reg is known as a batton argument.
They introduce it hoping you pick it up and carry it.
In this case i would write to them and place them on notice that you are accusing them openly of knowingly using equipment that is faulty.
You paid for parking.
You can prove you paid for parking and if they think they are owed any contractual charge they should cease all correspondence  over the matter and apply to a county court.
That any correspondence other than a court claim will be charged at £30 a letter to reply to them.
If they do not agree to this issue a court claim.

Thank you, I’ve already input the appeal, and in light of LoobyLoo’s statement I have accused them of knowing the machine was faulty.  

Needhelp45

BeIow is the text posted on our appeal, in case it is helpful to any other PCN victims!  A bit long winded, but I’ve just thrown everything possible at it in the hopes they will decide it’s not worth pursuing.  Thankyou everyone for your help and support!!

IAS – Basis of Appeal - Xxxxx

I received a Notice to Keeper dated 5th October stating ‘Parked with no valid parking session/permit’

I no longer had the ticket, so I submitted an appeal to Armtrac providing proof of card payment, for longer than the duration of the parking session. (see attached upload) and included the following request;

‘If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it’

On the 1st November 2021 Armtrac declined the appeal on the basis that;

‘The error is yours. In incorrectly entering the VRM as CVG instead of full and correct VRM EO66 CVG when making payment, no valid ticket was covering the vehicle remaining in the car park on private land’

I deny that I omitted to key the first 3 digits of my VRN.  I checked the details keyed in at the time, it makes no sense that I would omit the first few characters of my own VRN and I’ve never received a parking charge before.  Despite my request, no records of other payments made, including partial VRNswere supplied in response to my appeal.   The machine is clearly faulty, I believe Armtrac are aware of this and I have a witness statement that support this.  The witness, another PCN recipient from Armtrac  Stennack Car Park, soon after mine, was similarly accused of omitting the first 2 digits of their VRN.  They denied this on appeal, pointing to machine malfunction and requesting details of other Parking Charge Notices issued for partially keyed VRM’s in the surrounding weeks.  Armtrac emailed a cancellation of this person’s PCN on 16th November ’21. (See attached uploads)

Cancelling this charge when challenged, is an admission from Armtrac that they were aware that the payment machine was faulty and yet they issued me with a 2nd PCN reminder on the same day for the same VRN issue.  Not only is this action unfair and inconsistent, but is also evidence of  ‘using predatory or misleading tactics’,  a further serious contravention of the IPC Code of Practise;

PART B.  Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators

14. Predatory Tactics

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. 

Furthermore, in stating;

‘The error is yours. In incorrectly entering the VRM as CVG instead of full and correct VRM EO66 CVG when making payment, no valid ticket was covering the vehicle remaining in the car park on private land’ 

it is evident that Armtrac were easily able to match the VRN to the parking session payment. As such they are in contravention of the IPC Code of Practise on the following counts;

PART C 2. Notice to Driver (Non-ANPR cases) ` 

1. Applying for Keeper Details where Keeper Liability is Sought

   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.

   1.9 Failure to abide by any applicable laws relating to data handling is viewed seriously by the IPC and will be considered a serious issue of non-compliance. 

In applying for my Keepers details, when my VRN could easily be linked to payment for the parking session, is evidence of applying for keeper details without ‘reasonable cause’ and as such a serious issue of non-compliance with the IPC Code of Practise;

And

PART B.  Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators 

8. Charges and Terms and Conditions.

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

In easily attributing payment to the VRN and parking session,the pursuit of this charge also ‘has no legitimate interest’.   As distinguished in the in the Parking Eye V Beavis case,pursuing such a charge is considered unfairly punishing the driver. It is deemed as punitive, unfair and unrecoverable inthe Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore not ‘reasonable and enforceable’.

Furthermore, the Government’s draft Appeals Charter,published in August 2021, the Technical Consultation ‘best practise’ concerning private parking charges point 46 states .... ‘There are a range of circumstances where the parking charge could be cancelled’ including ‘motorist has paid the tariff but made a keying error when registering their vehicle’

The IPC’s ‘ Get Your Reg Right’ campaign the IPC also publishes this statement in it’s members’ information guide;

‘The “Get Your Reg Right” campaign also builds upon the initiative taken by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) in asking parking operators to reconsider innocent typographical errors…..Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Formally the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is supporting the campaign and has provided the following statement :…. “Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have an important role to play in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges. I am pleased to support the IPC’s ‘Get Your Reg Right’ campaign, which will promote best practice to ensure fairness and common sense prevails” 

Given that Armtrac’s stated reasons for the pursuit of this charge are deemed unfair and grounds for cancelling the charge in a legal case, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Government’s draft Appeals Charter’s best practice and the IPCs advice to members, Armtrac are shown to be acting unreasonably, unfairly and in a predatory manner in all aspects of their pursuit of this parking charge.