keying errors

chippyd

any advice welcome. Pretty standard stuff ive read on here, bought a ticket in a Britannia car park , didn't keep the pay and display ticket. got a PCN two weeks later for minor keying error but no details . had to go to popla to get details of error. still no details just a random list of number plates so lost appeal. fine went up to £100 then BWlegal £160 bla bla bla now been sent court papers. I am trying to get clarification  about the Private parking code of practice 7/2/22, says its temporarily withdrawn. can I use this as it specifically says to avoid or issuing or enforcing pcns related to keying errors.
many thanks

Coupon-mad

 still no details just a random list of number plates.

Please go back to the POPLA evidence pack and study that carefully. Is there one that looks like it could be your payment and partial VRM? Or another car in your household you keyed in by mistake?

If you can no longer access the POPLA evidence pack, email POPLA and ask for the evidence pack under your SAR rights.  This could prove useful.

Did Britannia admit it was a keying error and offer to settle at £20 prior to POPLA?

The new Code isn't retrospective but the BPA Code of Practice applied at the time.

What month/year was the parking event? 

What's the date of issue of this N1 claim?

chippyd

I have emailed POPLA they can no longer access my data as its on a legacy system now decommissioned. they did offer a £20 fine but no evidence of what my keying error was . its a trap ,soon as you appeal to get information the fine goes to £100 happened in Aug 2021 N1 issued 08 July 2022. should I just pay up ?
 

chippyd

I have just received an email from my MP saying some of the private parking companies have started legal proceedings against the decision so the  private parking code of practice is temporarily withdrawn. so that's a major blow as i was hoping to get them on the issuing or enforcing keying errors.

Coupon-mad

We know that already. All over the forum, and there to be challenged again by consumers shortly in a Public Consultation.

Of course you don't pay!

Ask the PPC for a SAR including all photos and letters and the POPLA evidence pack they submitted.

Have you done the claim AOS yet (SEE NEWBIES THREAD)?

Half_way

The pay and display machines are linked to the ANPR cameras so that if a vehicle enters the car park that hasn't been correctly recorded on the machine a parking charge notice is issued against the one captured on the ANPR system.

This leads to this question:

 If an incorrect registration plate is entered then why does the system accept payment against a VRN that does not exist ?

The Answer : setting up a system in such a way increases the likelihood of parking charge notices being issued and in turn a parking charge notice is more lucrative than the standard parking rate

Whos car park is it, and why havent you got the car park owner involved??

chippyd

thanks for your help people, yes im a newbie, i will request all the information from the pcc.
didnt think to contact the land owner, not sure how i would find that info. im not sure the ANPR is that high tech in this carpark , it certainly didn't stop me inputting the incorrect reg. no barriers to stop you leaving if you have made a mistake.
im looking up AOS now.

Umkomaas

chippyd said:

I have just received an email from my MP saying some of the private parking companies have started legal proceedings against the decision so the  private parking code of practice is temporarily withdrawn. so that's a major blow as i was hoping to get them on the issuing or enforcing keying errors.

I'd go back to your MP and ask that they support the British motorist in opposing any change to the outcomes of the already well consulted and researched process undertaken by the DLUHC, culminating in the new Code of Practice, and reiterating what the Minister, Neil O'Brien, described as labyrinthine processes and charges designed to extort motorists.  

We (and everyone who comes here) must use every weapon at disposal, otherwise those who've already faced one parking charge (whether won or lost) will inevitably come back time and time again if the PPCs and their ATAs wrest the supremacy in this potentially because of motorist complacency in responding to the next consultation. 

Last chance saloon!

Coupon-mad

chippyd said:

thanks for your help people...

im looking up AOS now.

We have a a template defence, so it is easy.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in time - do that now or over the weekend - you have until 4pm on 10th August to file your Defence.

Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To find our Template Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try to 'Start Defence' via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Leave that alone!  Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'. Defence and the subsequent N180 form (see NEWBIES thread) is done by email.

chippyd

item reposted as reply as requested to keep thread history.

Please could someone take a quick look at my PCN court defence and let me know if ive missed anything or put to much in. I have used bits from the defence posts in the forum posted by coupon-mad.

The Emails and letters are coming thick and fast now from the PCN company requesting I pay up as they will win the case. all very unpleasant.

thanks 

XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:   

 

It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

On the 18/08/2021 the defendant entered into a private carpark in Newport on the isle of Wight.  A ticket was purchased  from the machine at the entrance in that car park by entering my car registration xxxx and paying £2.20 by cash.

The ticket machine dispensed a ticket based on the information keyed in. The Defendant reasonably expected that the payment was made appropriately and had no reason to question that the payment was valid.

 The defendant displayed the ticket in the car windscreen and left within the time permitted . The defendant did not appear to be in breach of any regulations as no PCN was displayed on the vehicle by a parking attendant. and he was not prevented from leaving the car park.

10 days later the defendant received a PCN in the post from Britannia parking demanding a £100 fine for failing to make a valid payment.

The defendant new this was incorrect as He remembered buying the ticket. He was unable to validate this claim as he had disposed of the paper windscreen display ticket, not expecting to keep it as evidence.

The Defendant appealed to Britannia parking  whom acknowledged a ticket had been purchased but believe a keying error had meant the vehicle number plate system had not matched the issued ticket. Britannia parking did not give specific details of the error only believing it to be keying error and charge reduced to £20. The defendant was sure a simple elimination of all the validated tickets purchased from that machine would highlight the 1 ticket issued with an unverified VRN, this would be evidence of defendant’s ticket.

The defendant suggests, no attempt has been made by the claimant and subsequently through the POPLA appeal process to give the details of the exact alleged keying error. But rather continue to add costs.

 

1. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice Principles

1.1 Upon receiving the PCN, the defendant was sure there had been a mistake as he had made a valid payment. defendant did concede that potentially a 0 may have been entered as O, thus explaining the confusion. This was rejected. The Defendant believes this is in breach of the BPA code of Practise. As set out in the POPLA annual report 2018 it states that in October 2017 The BPA advised its members to put motorists at the heart of heart of their thinking and to focus on effective carpark management rather than punishing mistakes. Particularly in the case of simple keying errors e.g. replacing a 0 for an O.

.2 Under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they:
(a) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
(b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for. 21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles
21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

A ticket was paid for, it was clear early on, that the defendant had paid in good faith but may have simply keyed in the wrong registration number. This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that a correct VRN is an 'obligation' which runs such a risk and will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.

3 A BPA AOS operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. The Claimant has failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone.

.4. Given the fact that the ANPR data did not match with a payment made, an automated PCN was issued. However, it was within the gift of the Claimant to ensure before starting enforcement at any site, that their systems are fit for purpose, such that the dangerous 'making a simple keying error' and associated consumer risk is eliminated from the machine when payments are being made.


.5 No standing or landowner authority.
Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices under defined parameters (including when caused by failure of their own data processing/excessive storage) and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

.7 In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

.8 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

.9        The defendant believes there can be no legitimate interest in the claimant pursing a claim for a partial VRN entry, when aware of the recently outlined Code of Practice by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in relation to parking tickets of this nature. The defendant therefore believes that this is not a case that has commercial justification or a cause of action for a defendant to have to answer to at a hearing in 2022, the same year the Government intends for such tickets to be identified by manual checks (and preferably not issued at all) or cancelled outright if they get through the checks and are appealed.

Coupon-mad

That's not the Template Defence.  Start again with the resource I pointed you to use.