Received parking notice despite having entered my registration details

Top_Drawer

Coupon-mad said:

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.

I finally got my response from POPLA and they of course, denied it. 

This is the full decision. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to parking without a permit.

Assessor summary of your case

When commenting on the parking operator’s evidence pack the appellant has confirmed their initial grounds of appeal, raised new grounds of appeal not mentioned within their initial submission in relation to signs. 

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal. 

• The parking operator has not shown the person they are pursuing is the driver, and liable for the PCN. 

• The Notice to Keeper does not comply with The Protection of Freedoms (POFA) Act 2012. 

• They have questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the site. 

• The have expressed dissatisfaction with the parking operator’s handling of their appeal. 

• The PCN does not resemble a form of loss, it is punitive and unenforceable. 

• The vehicle was registered to park, and a notice was displayed on the terminal screen, which is incorrect and misleading as it implies a permit was supplied for a car that does not exist. They have provided a photograph taken 7 February 2023.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The signs at the site states: “PARKING CONDITIONS. DAISYFIELDS POOLS. VISTORS PARKING ONLY. DAISYFIELDS POOLS VISITORS MUST OBTAON A PARKING PERMIT AT RECEPTION. IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100. These terms apply at all times…” 

The parking operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the motorist was at the car park for one hour three minutes. The parking operator has also provided a system print out, which shows there was no permit registered against the motorist’s vehicle on the day. The parking operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to parking without a permit. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the 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. When commenting on the parking operator’s evidence pack the appellant has confirmed their initial grounds of appeal, raised new grounds of appeal not mentioned within their initial submission in relation to signs. When we invited the appellant to provide comments on the operator’s evidence, this was not an opportunity for the appellant to raise any new grounds for appeal or to provide any new evidence. As such, any further grounds for appeal raised in their comments cannot be taken into consideration. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal. 

• The parking operator has not shown the person they are pursuing is the driver, and liable for the PCN. 

• The Notice to Keeper does not comply with The Protection of Freedoms (POFA) Act 2012. PoFA 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. 

• They have questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the site. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the parking operator have provided written authority from the owner of the land confirming they have authority to manage the site. 

• The have expressed dissatisfaction with the parking operator’s handling of their appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues regarding the way the operator dealt with the appellant’s are outside of POPLA’s remit, and not in a position to comment. POPLA’s remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. 

• The PCN does not resemble a form of loss, it is punitive and unenforceable. I accept the charge might not reflect any loss, given the appellant comments, 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. 

• The vehicle was registered to park, and a notice was displayed on the terminal screen, which is incorrect and misleading as it implies a permit was supplied for a car that does not exist. They have provided a photograph taken 7 February 2023. The motorist made a keying error and registered the wrong vehicle, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure the correct vehicle details are registered correctly. A registration terminal would not know the motorist had registered the wrong vehicle details. I appreciate the motorist registered the wrong details in error, and this was not a deliberate action, but this does not mean they would be free from the consequences of their actions. In regard to keying errors the BPA Code of Practice states: Section 17 refers to the more frequent use of modern technology by parking operators, to aid them in management of a car park. This technology requires a motorist to correctly enter their vehicle registration details at a pay and display machine to validate their parking session, or at a validation terminal in instances where parking is offered at a reduced rate or free of charge. The BPA Code of Practice 17.4B relates to major keying errors and states that if it can be identified that a ticket was purchased but the wrong vehicle registration was entered in error (by 2 digits or more). The operator must offer to reduce the parking charge to £20 to cover their admin costs for a 14 day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. The operator has agreed to do this, but the appellant refused as they decided to appeal to POPLA. As the operator did offer the reduction, it has fully complied with the Code of Practice above. The signage at the site is clear that parking without a valid permit, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By parking on site without a valid permit, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. It is the responsibility to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. As they parked without a permit, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly I refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

As expected.  Advice has not changed. NO PAYING.

Our current advice in keying error cases is to either pay the £20, or expect to win in court - but not at appeal.  Then sit and wait and ignore the daft £170 threatograms.

ALWAYS COMPLAIN TO THE LANDOWNER.

Things will change next year with the new fairer code of practice, making AOS members cancel all keying error cases on appeal.

Top_Drawer

Sorry for the my extended absence. The MSc took much longer than expected as I caught covid, then a chest infection and have been utterly exhausted for months. Yesterday I was informed that I am to be made redundant and then today I received a Letter before Action in respect of the parking fine I originally posted regarding. As you state in the last message, for a ridiculous £170. 

I'd much appreciate some guidance as I must admit I am worried. I graduated last Wednesday and this last few months have been very expensive so I cannot afford to lose. 

Gr1pr

Study post 2 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements and follow the advice within it about replying to an LoC, using the template provided 

Top_Drawer

Mine is with CEL - I've read through post 2 but this company isn't mentioned. 

KeithP

But you have received a Letter Before Action - otherwise known as a Letter Before Claim or Letter of Claim.

The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explain exactly how to react upon receipt of that.

It really doesn't matter who has sent it to you.

Coupon-mad

Please don't expect to see stuff about CEL. The advice fits all cases so there won't be anything specific about bog standard firms like CEL.

Top_Drawer

This is the final letter I have drafted - comments welcome. I have put off dealing with this but it's really niggling at me (and disturbing my sleep) so I have seized the day this afternoon It very much follows the letter mentioned in post 2 and I've added my reasoning too- is it ok to mention this here? Is it giving them the heads up? 

Le_Kirk

Asking for 30 days is fine, if you actually need it.  Why have you underlined "this damages"?  I wouldn't be telling them that an incorrect VRM was entered nor anything about dyslexia nor any errors. I might expand on why there was no parking payment due.  You are, of course writing to them as keeper so remove "my parking" and put "the parking" or similar.

Top_Drawer

Le_Kirk said:

Asking for 30 days is fine, if you actually need it.  Why have you underlined "this damages"?  I wouldn't be telling them that an incorrect VRM was entered nor anything about dyslexia nor any errors. I might expand on why there was no parking payment due.  You are, of course writing to them as keeper so remove "my parking" and put "the parking" or similar.

The additional 30 days request is part of the draft letter in the newbies post - I hoped it would become clearer in time why it was requested. The underlining indicates a grammar issue has been detected by word. 

I was hoping that by providing evidence they may decide to just cancel the charge. It has been mentioned that this would be enough of a reason. Do I really wait to go to court to mention it? 

@Coupon-mad - I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter?