Two Fines - Wrong Registration

craggy121

I got a new car and within a week had two parking fines because of stupidly entering the wrong registration.

The first one, I appealed at IAS and WON.

The second one, they have told me I entered my old registration but that it stands and I have to pay.  I had collected my new car that morning and have the paperwork to prove it. This one is through Excel Parking Services.

Is it worth fighting on?

It would be so easy to pay £60. I'd even happily pay £20 for 'administration fees' but am not been given the choice for that.

Thanks for any advice on this.

Craggy

D_P_Dance

They are not fines, please read the newbies.

Of course it is worth fighting. they are trying to scam you. and many judges regard these claims as trivial, a waste of court time, please read this and complain to your MP

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=De Minimis-,Related Content,of the breach is negligible.

fisherjim

ANPR is a lazy, labour saving way of charging for time on site, that is so flawed and unfair that local authorities are banned from using it.

But of course PPC's love the scamming possibilities and it makes them millions.

Your input actually helps their process with free input of data, and any failings or mistakes help them to bang in an invoice, don't get conned.

If you paid for the time on site, you paid for the time on site, an error in punching in a VRN (a courtesy on your part to help them) did not cost the landowner anything.

D_P_Dance

ANPR far to often gets it wrong, read this,

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

craggy121

D_P_Dance said:

They are not fines, please read the newbies.

Of course it is worth fighting. they are trying to scam you. and many judges regard these claims as trivial, a waste of court time, please read this and complain to your MP

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=De Minimis-,Related Content,of the breach is negligible.

Thank you, that's really helpful.  My bad calling them fines.  

I'll keep on going with it

Fruitcake

Excel are IPC members.
The IPC have been promoting a Get your reg right campaign.

This is what it says.

TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below)

TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of typoproof parking payment systems as a moral duty.


Sorry, I can't work out how to shorten the link below.

The International Parking Community (IPC) on Twitter: "@_TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below) @_TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of #typoproof #parking payment systems as a moral duty. #mondaythoughts https://t.co/izGqyc1wO0 https://t.co/ztH9lbYpX2" / Twitter

The technology has been around for a long time to ensure the VRM of a vehicle cannot be entered into a machine unless a vehicle with that VRM is actually present in the car park.

Complain to the PPC that they have failed to comply with the IPC's requirements by failing to install typo-proof machines and technology. Had such equipment been installed as per the IPC's campaign, this error would never have occurred.

If/when they reject it, complain to the IPC.

craggy121

fisherjim said:

ANPR is a lazy, labour saving way of charging for time on site, that is so flawed and unfair that local authorities are banned from using it.

But of course PPC's love the scamming possibilities and it makes them millions.

Your input actually helps their process with free input of data, and any failings or mistakes help them to bang in an invoice, don't get conned.

If you paid for the time on site, you paid for the time on site, an error in punching in a VRN (a courtesy on your part to help them) did not cost the landowner anything.

Thank you, that's really helpful. And yes, I paid for the time I was there so therefore the landowner doesn't lose out - I'll keep going with it.

craggy121

Fruitcake said:

Excel are IPC members.
The IPC have been promoting a Get your reg right campaign.

This is what it says.

TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below)

TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of typoproof parking payment systems as a moral duty.


Sorry, I can't work out how to shorten the link below.

The International Parking Community (IPC) on Twitter: "@_TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below) @_TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of #typoproof #parking payment systems as a moral duty. #mondaythoughts https://t.co/izGqyc1wO0 https://t.co/ztH9lbYpX2" / Twitter

The technology has been around for a long time to ensure the VRM of a vehicle cannot be entered into a machine unless a vehicle with that VRM is actually present in the car park.

Complain to the PPC that they have failed to comply with the IPC's requirements by failing to install typo-proof machines and technology. Had such equipment been installed as per the IPC's campaign, this error would never have occurred.

If/when they reject it, complain to the IPC.

Thanks so much, that is so useful.