Paid yet still fined

devo18uk

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no record of parking payment on the date in question.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • When exiting the car park, they went to a payment terminal and entered their registration. • The payment terminal stated that £20 was due which they paid in full. • It’s not their fault that he is parking operators’ equipment has failed them. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments and explained the parking operator has not provided photos of the pay stations The appellant has provided 2 bank statements as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The parking operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for, this is then compared to the transaction list to check each vehicle has purchased the correct amount of parking time. As the transaction list provided by the operator shows that no parking time was purchased, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. I appreciate the appellant has said they made a payment and has provided evidence of this; I do not doubt a payment was made as the appellant has shown this via their evidence. The transaction list also shows that payments were made via ParkBee, EVOKE and Mirada, I acknowledge the parking operator has not provided images of a pay station, but I can see there are different payment methods and pay stations will be one of these. The appellant’s registration is not on the transaction list, the list also shows that other motorists paid for their parking and entered their registration, so I am satisfied the payment systems were in working order on the day in question. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 the parking operator offered the reduced fee when they identified a keying error had occurred. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.

DE_612183

did the company offer you a reduced pcn of £20?

KeithP

Do you have a question?

Oh... and there is no fine. All you have received is a speculative invoice.

devo18uk

DE_612183 said:

did the company offer you a reduced pcn of £20?

Yes they did, as a 'good will gesture'.  I've had a 'final reminder' from Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd (dcbl).

KeithP

Which parking company?

devo18uk

KeithP said:

Do you have a question?

Oh... and there is no fine. All you have received is a speculative invoice.

I've been ignoring this tbh.  Especially when they use non-committal language such as 'may this' and 'may that'...

The only thing that has spooked me slightly is the CCJ comment.

I have said to the better half that I'd happily go to court and lose, just to waste their time and money...

devo18uk

KeithP said:

Which parking company?

CP Plus Ltd.  DCBL are the bailiffs.

devo18uk

The comment from POPLA that really irks me is:

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.

Now, I guarantee I wouldn't have entered more than one character incorrectly; it's part of my job to find minor faults in documents! 

When they sent me the list of paid cars from that period (which surely must be breaching GDPR?!), there was nothing even close to my registration in over 20 pages!  I used the 'ctrl+F' function to establish this.  However, that original link expired, so I can't gain access - rookie mistake.

B789

devo18uk said:

The only thing that has spooked me slightly is the CCJ comment.

I have said to the better half that I'd happily go to court and lose, just to waste their time and money...

Why do you think you are "spooked" by the mention of a CCJ? Could it be because of the sorry state of our education system that doesn't so much as mention anything about civil law and CCJs and so we have a nation of gullible people imagining that they can get a CCJ just because someone threatens them with one?

I'm glad that you're happy to go all the way to court to fight this injustice but you really should understand how and why a CCJ is issued and what the ramifications of getting on are and how to nullify it.

The POPLA tea boy's assessment is irrelevant. It has no bearing, whatsoever, on any future court claim, should it even reach that stage. You are now at Plan D stage and will have to weather the inevitable storm of useless debt collector letters. Be careful though... they will use the "CCJ" word and even the "bailiff" word many times. You ignore them because they are just idle threats. The debt collectors are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached and have no say in the matter. They offer their services to the parking company on a no-win, no-fee basis. All they can do is threaten and cajole the gullible victims into pooping their pants at the mention of "CCJ" and "bailiff" and paying the, by now, extorted fee.

Once the debt collectors realise that you're not a gullible victim because you ignored their waste paper blizzard, they will hand it back to the PPC who will have to decide whether it is worth trying to scare you further by issuing an LoC and subsequently an actual court claim. Even then, many are just chancing it that the gullible victim will, at this stage, capitulate and pay into their scam.

A robustly defended claim is usually enough to get the scammers to throw in the towel and discontinue. The few that actually go to a hearing, the majority are won because the scammers are intellectually malnourished and their scams are exposed.

Even if you did lose in court, you would in all probability pay less than the claim as they add on illegal fees which are not allowed in small claims. Then if you lost, as long as you pay the CCJ within 30 days, it is expunged from your record. There is no mention of it, ever.

Coupon-mad

If DCBLegal file a claim, that will be the stage when you win because they always discontinue before the hearing.

If that evidence isn't in your 'downloads' I would send a SAR to CP Plus asking for the POPLA evidence pack, because you want a copy, under your GDPR rights.

How to find a PPC's email address for a SAR is in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Ignore DCB who are not acting as bailiffs at pre-court stage.

And we hope that you are ready to respond to the final Government Public Consultation in the coming weeks?

Anticipated to start THIS MONTH. 

If you are not a regular reader, to be alerted you'll need to bookmark the thread by MSE_JC at the top of the forum and enable (on your profile) email alerts for 'bookmarked' threads.

We all need to ram the nail in the coffin of the false £70 'fee' add-on, that you will now find added to your PCN in the DCB demands

That 'extortion' (DLUHC Minister's word) funds the court claim and toxic litigation culture that runs rife through the parking industry, with their roboclaim 'legals' gaslighting conduct that fools people into paying £170 per PCN to line the pockets of the bullyboy hangers-on.

See you back here in a couple of weeks please, if you and your motoring family want to stop this litigation rush by banning the £70 add-on and capping parking charges.

It will only be open for a few weeks so please do come back very soon to see what we are making of the DLUHC's analysis and what the questions look like that consumers need to answer.

devo18uk

B789 said:

devo18uk said:

The only thing that has spooked me slightly is the CCJ comment.

I have said to the better half that I'd happily go to court and lose, just to waste their time and money...

Why do you think you are "spooked" by the mention of a CCJ? Could it be because of the sorry state of our education system that doesn't so much as mention anything about civil law and CCJs and so we have a nation of gullible people imagining that they can get a CCJ just because someone threatens them with one?

I'm glad that you're happy to go all the way to court to fight this injustice but you really should understand how and why a CCJ is issued and what the ramifications of getting on are and how to nullify it.

The POPLA tea boy's assessment is irrelevant. It has no bearing, whatsoever, on any future court claim, should it even reach that stage. You are now at Plan D stage and will have to weather the inevitable storm of useless debt collector letters. Be careful though... they will use the "CCJ" word and even the "bailiff" word many times. You ignore them because they are just idle threats. The debt collectors are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached and have no say in the matter. They offer their services to the parking company on a no-win, no-fee basis. All they can do is threaten and cajole the gullible victims into pooping their pants at the mention of "CCJ" and "bailiff" and paying the, by now, extorted fee.

Once the debt collectors realise that you're not a gullible victim because you ignored their waste paper blizzard, they will hand it back to the PPC who will have to decide whether it is worth trying to scare you further by issuing an LoC and subsequently an actual court claim. Even then, many are just chancing it that the gullible victim will, at this stage, capitulate and pay into their scam.

A robustly defended claim is usually enough to get the scammers to throw in the towel and discontinue. The few that actually go to a hearing, the majority are won because the scammers are intellectually malnourished and their scams are exposed.

Even if you did lose in court, you would in all probability pay less than the claim as they add on illegal fees which are not allowed in small claims. Then if you lost, as long as you pay the CCJ within 30 days, it is expunged from your record. There is no mention of it, ever.

The only reason that I was spooked by the CCJ comment, is because I’m 40 years old and never had any interaction with this aspect of the legal system; hence, my lack of understanding of how the process operates.

Thank you for the information, which has reaffirmed my stance.