Car Registration Number entered on to Tablet but ANPR not recorded? POPLA Appeal Rejected

Jenks180

Please see appeal rejected by POPLA, I entered my details on a PC Tablet within the private club that i visit weekly but the details were not recorded ? 

My appeal was based upon me entering the details but the tablet / software not recording the details correctly.  

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to permit holders only.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the site has a new monitoring system which requires a motorist to enter their vehicle registration upon entering the building. They state they are a regular user of the site, and they entered their registration upon entering the site prior to ordering any food. They advise they have not been provided with any photographic evidence to suggest their vehicle was parked on the site. The appellant advises they believe the tablet is faulty as other members have received PCN’s. They explain on the permit report it shows the same vehicle on 10 occasions within a period of time, therefore this suggests the system is not working. The appellant further states upon entering their registration they are given a visual confirmation to confirm the permit however no receipt via email or text to provide as evidence. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal and raised new grounds. The appellant has provided a copy of the appeal rejection letter and the permit report.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “WALTON WORKING MEN'S CLUB MEMBER PARKING ONLY...MEMBERS/VISITORS MUST OBTAIN A PARKING PERMIT INSIDE THE BAR”. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 18:33, and exiting at 22:34, a total duration of 4 hours and 1 minute. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not hold a valid permit. They have provided a permit report. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the rules have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge. The appellant’s case is that the site has a new monitoring system which requires a motorist to enter their vehicle registration upon entering the building. They state they are a regular user of the site, and they entered their registration upon entering the site prior to ordering any food. They advise they have not been provided with any photographic evidence to suggest their vehicle was parked on the site. The appellant advises they believe the tablet is faulty as other members have received PCN’s. They explain on the permit report it shows the same vehicle on 10 occasions within a period of time, therefore this suggests the system is not working. The appellant further states upon entering their registration they are given a visual confirmation to confirm the permit however no receipt via email or text to provide as evidence. I note the appellant has provided copies of the permit report and the appeal rejection letter. I acknowledge that the appellant was attending the men’s club and had legitimate reasons to park on the site. POPLA’s role is to provide an impartial investigation to determine if the terms and conditions of a site have been breached and if the charge was issued correctly. This is done by reviewing evidence submitted by both parties in accordance with the laws and guidelines for private parking. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the signage states that members need to register for a permit at the bar. The operator and appellant have provided a permit report, which shows no record of the appellant registering for parking. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has stated they did register there is no evidence of this. Upon entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signage and comply with the terms or leave. As there is no record of the appellant registering their vehicle, they breached the terms and received a charge. I note the appellant has stated the system is faulty however the report shows motorists were able to register at the same time of the contravention. Please note POPLA are not able to discuss other motorists within an appeal, as we must only consider the individual case for the appellant and their vehicle. I acknowledge that the appellant states they were not provided with a receipt upon registering, onus is on the motorist to provide evidence to support their claims in an appeal. I have not received sufficient evidence to support this. If the appellant feels as though the operator has not acted accordingly or they wish to dispute issues with the site, we recommend contacting The British Parking Association (BPA). I acknowledge that the appellant states there is no photographic evidence of their vehicle on the site, however the operator has provided ANPR images which show the vehicle entering and exiting the site after 4 hours and 1 minute. The appellant also stated that they parked on the site, therefore I am satisfied that the appellant was parked on the site. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not discuss them further. I note the appellants has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds after seeing the evidence pack. As these grounds were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these as part of my decision In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.

Listed below are the partial car registration numbers provided by Civil Enforcement Ltd listed as visiting this private car park within a 5 hour period, My vehicle is not listed but as you can see one vehicles registration number was entered 10 x within this period which would have required someone individually entering their car registration number every 30 minutes on average, you are only required to enter the registration number once for being allowed to park for 24 hours.

   

Jenks180

This is my letter to Civil Enforcement Ltd following my reject appeal from Popla. (My personal Details removed for this post)

Thank you for your letter.

 

In accordance with common law, I do not consent and do not wish to contract with you. In addition, according to the 1688 Bill of Rights Act, current constitutional statue law in England and Great Britain, provides the following.

 

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeit of particular persons, without conviction are illegal.

 

Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied. All which are utterly directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm.

 

Any further correspondence from yourselves or others you direct regarding this matter will be charged at a rate of £250.00 per document.

Any visits to my vehicle, property, or premises from yourselves of other that you direct regarding this matter will be charges at a rate of £5,000 per visit. This is non-negotiable.

 

Without Prejudice, yours sincerely,

KeithP

Jenks180 said:

This is my letter to Civil Enforcement Ltd following my reject appeal from Popla. (My personal Details removed for this post)

Thank you for your letter.

 

In accordance with common law, I do not consent and do not wish to contract with you. In addition, according to the 1688 Bill of Rights Act, current constitutional statue law in England and Great Britain, provides the following.

 

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeit of particular persons, without conviction are illegal.

 

Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied. All which are utterly directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm.

 

Any further correspondence from yourselves or others you direct regarding this matter will be charged at a rate of £250.00 per document.

Any visits to my vehicle, property, or premises from yourselves of other that you direct regarding this matter will be charges at a rate of £5,000 per visit. This is non-negotiable.

 

Without Prejudice, yours sincerely,

You're joking, surely?

Waste of time and effort sending that.

Do you even know what it means?

Coupon-mad

Don't read stuff on t'internet about the useless and irrelevant Bill of Rights Act!  The people who post that rubbish online are deluded and I think included the hapless Mr Semark-Jullien who was singled out as a clueless victim by Bw Legal, in the case they boast about on their news section. Lambs to the slaughter.

Just await the court claim and defend (with your evidence to support your case coming into play later, at WS stage).

You did everything right. POPLA are a waste of time these days.  How the hell is a consumer meant to prove that the keypad failed, given the fact that it doesn't produce a receipt by 'durable medium' so you can never tell? 

Your evidence is good and also shows one person had to enter their VRM twice, as they weren't sure the stupid system had worked.  How does anyone know?