Received parking notice despite having entered my registration details

B789

Top_Drawer said:

Le_Kirk said:

You are too accepting that it was your fault; are you sure it wasn't a failure of the PPC's equipment?

I am assuming it is my fault but I suppose I can't be absolutely sure. 

Stop assuming anything. It is obvious to anyone here and it would be obvious to any sane judge that this is a minor keying error and that you paid for the session. Is your dyslexia or dyspraxia documented? If so, you should be able to threaten the PPC with a breach of the Equalities Act, especially once they have been notified of your disability and they fail to now take that into account.

There are several threads on here that very recently have been updated with defences relating to breaches of the EA.

Top_Drawer

B789 said:

Is all the above over a minor keying error of "PF" instead of "KH"? Why on earth are you redacting the name of the car park? Is it a state secret or something?

You're not denying having parked there unless it is a non-PoFA PCN and you haven't admitted to being the driver are you? That "Confirmation of Authority" page is a joke. What is that supposed to prove? That anyone with a pen and a printer can knock something up and pretend it is in some way a landowner authorisation? 

It doesn't even mention on their pathetic sign that reg details have to be entered, correctly or otherwise.

Yes it seems so - the hours I spent uploading / researching this really do amount to all that. 

I wasn't sure whether I should display it on the internet - definitely not a state secret. I haven't admitted anything although their popla appeal says they assume so. 

Top_Drawer

B789 said:

Top_Drawer said:

Le_Kirk said:

You are too accepting that it was your fault; are you sure it wasn't a failure of the PPC's equipment?

I am assuming it is my fault but I suppose I can't be absolutely sure. 

Stop assuming anything. It is obvious to anyone here and it would be obvious to any sane judge that this is a minor keying error and that you paid for the session. Is your dyslexia or dyspraxia documented? If so, you should be able to threaten the PPC with a breach of the Equalities Act, especially once they have been notified of your disability and they fail to now take that into account.

There are several threads on here that very recently have been updated with defences relating to breaches of the EA.

The dyslexia is although it's some years since I had a assessment - I did receive full support (DSA + 1-2-1 support) when at college and university though. 

Coupon-mad

Even if you lose at POPLA you won't be paying!

Top_Drawer

B789 said:

Top_Drawer said:

Le_Kirk said:

You are too accepting that it was your fault; are you sure it wasn't a failure of the PPC's equipment?

I am assuming it is my fault but I suppose I can't be absolutely sure. 

Stop assuming anything. It is obvious to anyone here and it would be obvious to any sane judge that this is a minor keying error and that you paid for the session. Is your dyslexia or dyspraxia documented? If so, you should be able to threaten the PPC with a breach of the Equalities Act, especially once they have been notified of your disability and they fail to now take that into account.

There are several threads on here that very recently have been updated with defences relating to breaches of the EA.

PPC? is that Private Parking company? 

Is it too late to bring it up now though? The popla thing does say my comments can only relate to what already covered. 

Any tips on how to respond to the popla thing? I have 7 days to respond and I'm just overwhelmed with the sheer amount of evidence they've dumped on me. I guess this is what they want. 

B789

Top_Drawer said:

The dyslexia is although it's some years since I had a assessment - I did receive full support (DSA + 1-2-1 support) when at college and university though. 

For now it doesn't matter as long as it has been documented at some time.

You may want to have a look at this counterclaim against a PPC who ignored the EA and lost. It will give you an idea of the arguments you can use in both any defence, WS and if necessary counterclaim. It is from a member of the forum who @Coupon-mad assisted a few years ago but I don't have all the links to hand for the thread. I copied the counterclaim as it was well prepared and makes interesting reading for those of us trying to brush up our skills in this cess-pit of litigious scammers:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xelf0rcg15wbkj8/EA counterclaim text.pdf?dl=0

imnothappy

wow...  this what parking companies do they Intimidate ...   also remember they have no legal claim to you. They have to prove a contract has been established..   

Coupon-mad

Any tips on how to respond to the popla thing? 

That's already in the 3rd Post of the NEWBIES thread.

Top_Drawer

Hello again, 

Thank you everyone for all your help. It has taken me all week to put the below together - life is quite busy at the moment. This is the results of my research into how to respond to the POPLA evidence pack 

Image and Plan:

-        The signs imply that the charges are in relation a ‘failure to comply’ with the terms of parking and amount to a penalty. As such the parking charge must amount to a genuine estimate of cost, which £100 for 1 hour and 9minutes parking is not. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

-        The photographs provided were taken in excellent lighting - this was not the case on the day in question which by their own omission was at 15.41. Furthermore, as you can see from the photographs the signs are not all individually illuminated and so would not be clearly visible at this time period of parking.

-        The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the code advises signs must give adequate notice to bring charges to the attention of motorists. In this case the sum of the charge is in a much smaller font to the conditions that precede it and I do not consider the parking operator has demonstrated compliance with this requirement.

 Response to POPLA document

-        Failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice for ANPR *FURTHER DETAIL NEEDED*

-        The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. This cannot be assumed as this document seems to suggest - *Do I need to say anything more? or have I inintentionally negated it somehow?  

-        The RK maintains having entered information correctly as requested – while I acknowledge that the operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that other motorist were able to register for a permit, this information does not illustrate where a malfunction may have occurred in the software causing incorrect information to be provided. *This could do with some better wording, I'm trying to say that no-one should ever trust software / especially not this piece of !!!!!! tablet.*

-        No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers - *do I need to expand?*

-        No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers *?*

Thank you again for any help. This has really affected my mood and life this past few weeks and this forum and the individual contributors have all been an enormous help in helping me see that I am not helpless. 

Coupon-mad

This is not a thing, not correct, so remove it:

-        The signs imply that the charges are in relation a ‘failure to comply’ with the terms of parking and amount to a penalty. As such the parking charge must amount to a genuine estimate of cost, which £100 for 1 hour and 9minutes parking is not. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.