Received parking notice despite having entered my registration details

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Can I re-phrase it in that way? Or do I need to remove it altogether? Are there any other items that I should include? I feel like I'm grasping at straws here since the fact that I entered anything into the tablet sugests that I kind of accepted the t&c. 

I can add the disability stuff too. I can't find a single case in the popla appeals (lost or won) similar to mine. 

Coupon-mad

Top_Drawer said:

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. 

Nope, your first comment above has no legs at all because a PCN doesn't have to represent loss.

Is the NTK a POFA one?

Are CEL saying they complied with the POFA?

Was it actually dark on arrival?

What do their photos of signs look like?

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

Nope, your first comment above has no legs at all because a PCN doesn't have to represent loss.

Is the NTK a POFA one? I'm not sure what NTK means : s

Are CEL saying they complied with the POFA? 

POFA seems to refer to the amount of time to issue / receive the notice  -they do state that they issue this was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Was it actually dark on arrival? The arrival picture shows that it was dusk (I have my headlights on)

What do their photos of signs look like? Taken on a beautiful sunny day (as best as it gets anyway!) in a completely empty carpark. The signs are mainly not illuminated. 

The tablet is located by the reception desk - its a rush to get your name ticked off as having attended (the staff are slower than treacle) / enter your details and move away to let the next person be booked in. Hence I'm adding that  along with the point that while the tablet might have been functioning, there is no saying whether the keys had stuck KH and PF are not similar though so I'm really not sure how to account for this. 

Coupon-mad

No, I wanted to see the signs!

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

No, I wanted to see the signs!

Some photographs I took are here 






The ones they've evidenced are located further back in the thread (pg6). 

Coupon-mad

OK, so the only points I would bother to send to POPLA are these two below.  The rest have no legs at POPLA because it was a POFA compliant NTK and there is a signed landowner authority document in evidence now.

And if you lose, you are not 'doomed'.

You can just ignore CEL (come back here at LBC stage) because the law is changing and it will support your view that there is no legitimate interest in pursuing a person with dyslexia for getting 2 digits wrong on a fiddly keypad numberplate entry, in a case where CEL were easily able to match the payment but withheld the VRM log evidence from you until you were entrapped at POPLA stage in a £100 rip-off situation.

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.

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

OK, so the only points I would bother to send to POPLA are these two below.  The rest have no legs at POPLA because it was a POFA compliant NTK and there is a signed landowner authority document in evidence now.

And if you lose, you are not 'doomed'.

You can just ignore CEL (come back here at LBC stage) because the law is changing and it will support your view that there is no legitimate interest in pursuing a person with dyslexia for getting 2 digits wrong on a fiddly keypad numberplate entry, in a case where CEL were easily able to match the payment but withheld the VRM log evidence from you until you were entrapped at POPLA stage in a £100 rip-off situation.

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.

Cheers! I've submitted both appeals. I know I'm unlikely to 'win' but I am hopeful. Are CE Ltd litigious - are they likely to pursue this? I read that they have been known to be quite malicious in the past from reading Parking Cowboys blog  - they ticketed staff of the company who had paid them to manage their carpark. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, they sue people and have a typical MO of using old addresses and causing CCJs because people don't find out about the claim.

Just make sure you tell them if you move house.

And come back here if you get a court claim, because defending those is what we do every day.

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, they sue people and have a typical MO of using old addresses and causing CCJs because people don't find out about the claim.

Just make sure you tell them if you move house.

And come back here if you get a court claim, because defending those is what we do every day.

B@star9s. I guess I can hope. Thank you again. 

Coupon-mad

Don't worry one iota about getting a court claim.  It's actually what you want.  Think of it as the ultimate fair dispute service that is free for you to use to kill off the PCN.

No CCJ risked as long as you continue to update them if you move within 6 years, and of course follow all our advice if a claim arrives.