One Parking Solution - Private car park ticket

Coupon-mad

You can see the person taking the first photo must have crouched down or lowered their phone when standing (oddly) at the front of the car (indeed at the end of the bonnet), to maximise the shaded area to be in the foreground in order to create the illusion that 'Bay 33' could not be read on the permit.

There is no angle taken from the normal/reasonable viewpoint of the eyes of the ticketer standing at the driver's side of the car and looking down at it!  The wider views show beyond doubt that there was plenty of room between the black & blue cars to stand on the driver's side and look at the permit.

Absolute scam ticketing of residents.

Call it out!  That photo would never get past a Judge.

Thorndorise

Please do correct me here as I'm still new to this game - but I don't think I've seen the additional charge of enforcement action fees of £70 on a sign before....

Coupon-mad

Thorndorise said:

Please do correct me here as I'm still new to this game - but I don't think I've seen the additional charge of enforcement action fees of £70 on a sign before....

It's something some firms now do and OPS was one of the first.

The REALLY annoying thing is that the MHCLG (now the DLUHC) 'coached' the parking industry to do that.  It came from the Public Consultation in 2021. Doh!

This was a point in time when they were not really listening (that thankfully changed) and the Govt were initially tone deaf about the scam of the added £70.

Reading between the lines, those of us who remember the wording in that 2021 Public Consultation (which didn't even ask the public if we thought the MHCLG's 'decision' to copy the "industry standard" of adding £70 per PCN was right or wrong!!) think that the MHCLG staff look to have asked their lawyers the wrong question.

Ws suspect it was too hard for them to grasp the scam at that point, and - understandably - they probably sought legal advice but maybe asked naively: "CAN a parking firm legally add a DRA fee?"  Instead of asking the CMA, the FCA or other Consumer Rights experts the right question: "SHOULD the parking industry be allowed to increase a charge like this. Is it proportionate/fair or does it in fact encourage profiteering behaviour and inflated litigation?"

Anyway, if they asked the first question, the MHCLG were clearly going to get the predictable lawyer answer: "Yes, anything's OK as long as it's prominently in the signs".

But that's REALLY BASIC contract law and that answer would be true even if the added fee was £1000!

Trouble is, that 2021 Consultation - in one fell swoop - taught the scammers how to get away with it because the Govt said (effectively):

"don't worry folks, the safeguard will be that the added fee has to be on the signs, in big".

Cue OPS bunging it on the signs, in big...

Bazarius

Thank you for uploading the photos .  Wow it’s unbelievable! It appears to me there is sufficient information available for the attendant to see it’s a valid permit . What else is there for them  to see to make it valid ? 

These rogue companies like OPS like to turn on the genuine users of the space to generate a huge profit from the contract in place . 

I was right .  The attendant took photos to suit the issuance of the ticket . I still think it’s possible to see the lower part if they stood at the side and took photos .  Try and recreate this exactly as shown and do a video walk around the front and side . The permit in your photos is too much in the centre - the attendant’s photo is more to the driver’s side easily viewed from the side 

You will probably need this to defend yourself against their court claim . 

Amburger

Coupon-mad said:

You have had a NTK. It was the thing you appealed.  The letter you talked about.

Hi. I'm just double checking about the NTK. Are they always sent via post? I don't believe we were sent one. We received 2 pcn on the car, one email rejecting appeal we made via their website but have received nothing else. I am in the process of writing up the POPLA appeal and just want to get my facts straight!

Coupon-mad

If you never had a NTK in the post then you can win at POPLA, as long as you never implied who was driving.

Amburger

Coupon-mad said:

If you never had a NTK in the post then you can win at POPLA, as long as you never implied who was driving.

My partner forgot to update his address on DVLA and apparently according to evidence they just provided to our POPLA appeal, they did send it but to the wrong address. They mentioned in the evidence that they sent it eletronically but that is BS

Amburger

OPN'S response for the POPLA appeal:
Only permits parking for vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid OPS Parking Permit in the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay to which the permit entitles. Pre-authorised vehicles (E-Permit) parked fully within the confines of a marked bay to which the E-Permit entitles. Any information provided in the defence of this parking charge is provided only for the Appellant and Assessor to view. The information is strictly confidential and commercially sensitive. No file, in part or whole submitted by One Parking Solution Ltd may be copied or shared with any other individuals in paper or electronic form. Any such sharing of files or information provided by One Parking Solution Ltd will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office. A redacted contract is supplied to protect personal information. The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid OPS Parking Permit in the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay to which the permit entitles. Pre-authorised vehicles (E-Permit) parked fully within the confines of a marked bay to which the E-Permit entitles. By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge. The driver made use of the facilities and went about their business. At the time of the contravention the appellant was not parked in the bay stated on the permit, making it impossible for the officer to determine if the parking permit is valid and or if the vehicle is authorised. The driver did not have pre-authorisation to park their vehicle in any other bay as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge. The appellant mentions that a compliant notice to keeper was not served as no keeper liability can apply but has failed to provide us with information as to exactly where this issue has occurred. However, a compliant notice to keeper was served via electronic means on the 24th of May 2024, the contravention took place on the 22nd of April 2024. Thus, within the time frame that is POFA compliant. The appellant has failed to provide us with information to elaborate how this is not POFA compliant. The landowner authority is evidenced in the redacted contract which we invite the appellant to review. The signage is clear and legible, in accordance with the BPA standards of practice. There are many signs across the site which demonstrate that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site. Across the site there are several signs which imply where parking is permitted. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved. Not seeking keeper liability as the appellant is clearly the driver.

Gr1pr

Presumably it's at Popla and the apellant has received notification of the OPS evidence pack. ?

In which case the apellant has 6 days from the notification to add their Popla comments 

So the apellant should go through the pack and highlight everything that fails in the evidence pack, plus everything that bolsters their Popla appeal 

Coupon-mad

"However, a compliant notice to keeper was served via electronic means on the 24th of May 2024"

Tell POPLA that was impossible because the wrong address appears on the NTK shown and they CANNOT have issued a postal NTK to the keeper 'by electronic means' and would be unable to evidence that (because they didn't). 


"Not seeking keeper liability as the appellant is clearly the driver."

Point that sentence out to POPLA and deny that the appellant 'is clearly the driver' which OPS cannot just assume.

UNLESS YOUR FIRST APPEAL TOLD THEM YOU PARKED THE CAR....? Did it?

Then ALSO remind POPLA of this:

You can see the person taking the first photo must have crouched down or lowered their phone when standing (oddly) at the front of the car (indeed at the end of the bonnet), to maximise the shaded area to be in the foreground in order to create the illusion that 'Bay 33' could not be read on the permit.

There is no angle taken from the normal/reasonable viewpoint of the eyes of the ticketer standing at the driver's side of the car and looking down at it!  The wider views show beyond doubt that there was plenty of room between the black & blue cars to stand on the driver's side and look at the permit.

Obviously, even if this is (likely) lost at POPLA you won't be paying!