Challenging a POPLA decision

amirshafieofficial

Hi all, advice needed pls!

I paid for parking using the RingGo app and mistakenly selected another vehicle that was registered to my account.

When Premier Park issued the PCN and fine for £100 I appealed saying it was simply an error and demonstrated that I’d paid for the parking that I’d used and also the evidence from the app that there are 2 car registered to it. The ANPR used to issue the fine can easily verify that the other vehicle has never parked there and the explanation was valid. This was registered on the grounds that they’d administered the notice correctly.

I also appealed to POPLA who, also dismissed the appeal on the ground the notice was issued correctly.

This means that although I paid for the parking used in good faith, and demonstrated this, that they now are due £100 in addition to the original amount received for the parking.

Tempted to let this run all the way to court as they’re massively profiting from an error made in good faith.

Decision notice from POPLA is all as follows below:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to pay for duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They paid using RingGo and mistakenly paid for their wife’s vehicle MR55HAF. • They demonstrated their payment to the parking operator in their first appeal and the parking operator rejected it. • They say the parking operator is penalising them for their error. • They advise the parking operator has suffered no loss and will profit from the parking charge. • They state the other vehicle did not park on the car park. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted the following evidence: 1. Their £2.50 RingGo receipt for vehicle registration MR55HAF. 2. A screenshot of the RingGo app to show their registered vehicles. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park, any motorist forms a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signs in place set out the terms and conditions of this contract. The parking operator has provided images of the signs in place in the car park, which states: “Please ensure you pay for your stay… Tariffs… 2 hours…………£2.00… Charges apply at all times including bank holidays… If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The parking operator has provided images of the motorist’s vehicle, entering the car park at 14:16, and exiting at 15:52, totalling a stay of one hour and 35 minutes. The parking operator must demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The parking operator has provided evidence of a system search for the registration S77HAF, to show that there was no payment made for the correct vehicle. It has also provided a copy of the site map, indicating the locations of each sign placed within the car park. It appears a contract between the driver and the parking operator was formed, and the parking operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Looking at the appellant’s evidence, I appreciate they made a mistake and paid for their parking in good faith. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership. Section 17 of the Code recognises that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking or registering for a permit. Section 17.4B requires the parking operator to have a process for dealing with major keying errors. Where more than one character has been incorrectly entered, it requires the parking operator to offer to reduce the amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. In this case I can see the parking operator offered the £20 reduced charge to the appellant. When the appellant brought their appeal to POPLA, they rejected this offer. I appreciate the appellant did not intend to make a mistake when selecting their vehicle registration. I also acknowledge that the other vehicle may not have parked in the car park on the day in question. Due to the appellant not selecting the vehicle registration S77HAF, the parking operator has not been able to match their payment to the correct vehicle. Due to the appellant’s mistake, the parking operator has then incurred costs to obtain the appellant’s details from the DVLA and issue the PCN. This is why the parking operator offers a reduced fee of £20, to recover the costs incurred by the error. I accept the charge might not reflect any loss, given the appellant did pay for their parking in good faith, but this has no bearing on my decision. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence, the motorist failed to pay for duration of stay for the correct vehicle and did not comply to the terms and conditions. I conclude this PCN has been issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Grizebeck

Await any court claim

Coupon-mad

 In this case I can see the parking operator offered the £20 reduced charge to the appellant. 

POPLA didn't get this wrong.  You should never have tried POPLA because they blindly apply the BPA Code and nothing more.

You'd win in court.

amirshafieofficial

Thank you both for your kind advice. Much appreciated and valued. 

fisherjim

Just one observation the PPC do not profit from the original fee plus their £100 pcn the landowner gets the parking fee the PPC gets what ever they can screw out of you for your mistake.

In essence Premier Park are delighted that you made a mistake as that is the only way they make money, and that is what is wrong with the whole sorry industry