Grounds for Appeal?

steevie_b

Hello,
I've received a NTK from Bank Park for 'failure to pay for parking'.  No windscreen ticket.  I understand that the machine (where you have to type your registration number) did not print the registration number on the ticket.
I have read the sticky threads as well as the IPC Code of Practice and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Para 9.  I note that 9.2c of the PoFA states "The Notice must... describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;".  The IPC CoP states at Schedule 3, point 2 that "...nor must the term ‘PCN’ be used unless it has been previously defined as reference to a ‘Parking Charge Notice’".
I've read and re-read the NTK (attached) and cannot see that they have 1) included the parking charges due (I'm presuming that this is the amount that was alleged to not have been paid); and, 2) defined PCN as Parking Charge Notice.
What are your thoughts on this?

Fruitcake

The charges due is £100 and is stated as such on the NTK.

Not calling a letter a parking charge notice is a minor point, and of no significance. In any case the term PCN has not been used so it is irrelevant.


Plan A is always to complain to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

Plan B is to appeal using the template in blue text from the NEWBIES.

Get photos of the site and signage as well.

Ditzy_Mitzy

There's not enough information in the initial post.  It implies that a ticket was bought, paid for and displayed, however said ticket did not have the car's number printed on it and a PCN has been issued as a result.  Is that a fair summary?

Coupon-mad

And if so, the OP should be arguing in the appeal that this is a keypad error and as such the PCN should be cancelled because the IPC and BPA have both welcomed the new incoming statutory Code of Practice, which includes cancellation of 'keying error' cases, as of right, because machines should not be set to allow this to happen.

Whilst the new Code is temporarily stalled (due to the greed of the parking industry forcing an Impact Assessment and kicking the can further down the road) the Appeals Charter is and will be unaffected.  ONLY the parking charge levels and fake added £70 'costs' price fix 'extortion' (Minister's word) will be subject to review.  Nothing else.

AND the IPC Tweeted that AOS members must act fairly in VRM keying error cases.

steevie_b

Fruitcake said:

The charges due is £100 and is stated as such on the NTK.

Not calling a letter a parking charge notice is a minor point, and of no significance. In any case the term PCN has not been used so it is irrelevant.


Plan A is always to complain to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

Plan B is to appeal using the template in blue text from the NEWBIES.

Get photos of the site and signage as well.

PCN is used on the second page, penultimate paragraph.

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

There's not enough information in the initial post.  It implies that a ticket was bought, paid for and displayed, however said ticket did not have the car's number printed on it and a PCN has been issued as a result.  Is that a fair summary?

Yes.

Coupon-mad said:

And if so, the OP should be arguing in the appeal that this is a keypad error and as such the PCN should be cancelled because the IPC and BPA have both welcomed the new incoming statutory Code of Practice, which includes cancellation of 'keying error' cases, as of right, because machines should not be set to allow this to happen.

Whilst the new Code is temporarily stalled (due to the greed of the parking industry forcing an Impact Assessment and kicking the can further down the road) the Appeals Charter is and will be unaffected.  ONLY the parking charge levels and fake added £70 'costs' price fix 'extortion' (Minister's word) will be subject to review.  Nothing else.

AND the IPC Tweeted that AOS members must act fairly in VRM keying error cases.

I've seen the getyourregright website and it's implying 'minor' keying errors (e.g. O instead of 0).  The printed ticket just had a single letter on it (not the full registration or a character within the registration).

I also understand, through research that Bank Park are particularly litigious.

Coupon-mad

I wasn't talking about the useless GetYourRegRight pseudo 'campaign'.  No mentioning that rubbish. That just pays the usual IPC lip-service to the problem and perpetuates the consumer blame culture whilst being vague about what a PPC should do.  Nicely done, IPC!

I'm only talking about referencing the new incoming DLUHC Code 'Appeals Charter' and a specific tweet from the IPC that we've quoted here before but I can't find.

Ditzy_Mitzy

How did you pay?  If a card was used you will have proof of payment, surely.  The machine should have logged the time the ticket was purchased and the amount paid will confirm how much parking time was bought.  If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.  You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

steevie_b

The payment was made by card and the car left the car park within the time limit paid for.
I don't think the fact that the payment was made is the problem; it's the 'breach' of their T&Cs (i.e. registration number must be entered).

Mouse007

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.

It depends what the sign says, was it a clear term and condition to enter the vehicle registration number? Did the machine actually allow you to do so? Did the ticket machine display contradictory instructions?

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

I don't think losses are relevant, they are not seeking damages they are seeking a contractual amount (the parking scam method of entrapment).

Ditzy_Mitzy

Mouse007 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.

It depends what the sign says, was it a clear term and condition to enter the vehicle registration number? Did the machine actually allow you to do so? Did the ticket machine display contradictory instructions?

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

I don't think losses are relevant, they are not seeking damages they are seeking a contractual amount (the parking scam method of entrapment).

But my point is that this is bordering on a legal absurdity.  The parking company do not seem to have any grounds upon which to sue @steevie_b , so wouldn't be able to start proceedings.  What is the basis of their claim?  That he paid for parking in a manner which did not comply with their terms and conditions?  I just can't see that getting off the ground.  

Coupon-mad

steevie_b said:

The payment was made by card and the car left the car park within the time limit paid for.
I don't think the fact that the payment was made is the problem; it's the 'breach' of their T&Cs (i.e. registration number must be entered).

Yep, so my advice was how to appeal it.