Major keying error Spouses Reg PCN, Popla declined.

BeachWalker

Hi, Parking fine for £100 from Brittannia Parking. I paid £1 parking but mistakenly put in wrong reg plate. I have proof of bank statement but no ticket was printed from the machine. Popla have declined the case. Looking for Advice on whether to pay up or contest it further. As seems very unfair iv paid the parking, just wrong reg. Had chance to pay reduced £20 but declined. 

Grizebeck

just wait for any court claim

Zbubuman

1. It is not a fine, its a speculative invoice from a parking company. 

When you say wrong Reg , was it a minor or major keying error ( Minor is replacing 1 digits, example O instead of 0 or 1 instead of i. Major is when you put an entirely different reg like ABC123 instead of XYZ789).

Code of practice states that minor keying errors should be cancelled or ignored whilst Major keying errors then can offer £20 admin charge ( which appears they have done) 

LDast

Only low-hanging fruition the gullible tree pay anything for ANY form of keying error, major or minor. 

BeachWalker

Zbubuman said:

1. It is not a fine, its a speculative invoice from a parking company. 

When you say wrong Reg , was it a minor or major keying error ( Minor is replacing 1 digits, example O instead of 0 or 1 instead of i. Major is when you put an entirely different reg like ABC123 instead of XYZ789).

Code of practice states that minor keying errors should be cancelled or ignored whilst Major keying errors then can offer £20 admin charge ( which appears they have done) 

Thanks for info, it was a Major keying error, I parked up in my wife's car but entered my own car reg other car in error. So they still got paid a £1 parking. Don't know how that would stand up in court against Brittannias strict rules. 

BeachWalker

LDast said:

Only low-hanging fruition the gullible tree pay anything for ANY form of keying error, major or minor. 

Have there been same cases of major keying errors been taken to court were the driver has had the fine written off? 

Grizebeck

BeachWalker said:

LDast said:

Only low-hanging fruition the gullible tree pay anything for ANY form of keying error, major or minor. 

Have there been same cases of major keying errors been taken to court were the driver has had the fine written off? 

It isn't a fine
Why are you calling it a fine 

BeachWalker

Grizebeck said:

BeachWalker said:

LDast said:

Only low-hanging fruition the gullible tree pay anything for ANY form of keying error, major or minor. 

Have there been same cases of major keying errors been taken to court were the driver has had the fine written off? 

It isn't a fine
Why are you calling it a fine 

Feels like a fine,  an unfair punishment , but its not its an invoice. 

Coupon-mad

Yes we win cases in court.  99% of cases here are won by the Defendant and it's very easy because we have a Template Defence.

Please post that decision and a link to this thread in the Announcement thread 'POPLA DECISIONS' (top of this forum, where you must also read 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST'please) and state at the top of your post which car park and which PPC, for context.

Apart from that try 'PLAN A' as explained in the NEWBIES FAQS Announcement thread because you can get it cancelled. You should never have tried POPLA.

Don't ask for a link or how to get to page one please: see my signature below.

Coupon-mad

You'd win this if they try a small claim.

Here's my reply to your post in POPLA DECISIONS:

Coupon-mad said:

BeachWalker said:

Hi my thread link
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556773/wrong-reg-parking-fine#latest

Brittannia Parking 
Flamborough North Landing 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as they failed to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that:

 • They paid for parking but the parking machine never gave them a parking ticket it just said the payment was successful.

• They apologise if they input their vehicle registration in incorrectly and there was only one car in the car park if that helps to track the payment.

• They feel the reduced PCN of £20 is still insulting and amounts to a scam.

• They feel the PCN is also discriminatory as they are dyslexic and they feel there has been unethical treatment based on their disability.

• They will take this further to the British Parking Association (BPA) and their solicitor. The appellant reiterated and expanded on their version of events in the motorist’s comments section stating:

• They entered their other vehicle registration in error – ****** The appellant included photographic evidence of their parking payment bank statement in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

Whilst assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When considering an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract and that the car park is to pay for parking and to enter the full, correct vehicle registration when doing so.

The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images proves the appellant was parked on site for 33 minutes.

The operator has provided an information report to prove there was payment for the appellant’s vehicle registration and others were able to pay for parking.

Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included of their bank statement which proves they paid for parking but does not prove their payment was a valid payment for the car they were driving on the date in question.

I note the appellant's comments and appreciate that they paid for parking and that they feel the £20 reduced PCN offered is insulting and amounts to a scam. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 17.4B requires parking operators to have a process for dealing with major keying errors, where more than one character have been incorrectly entered or not entered at all. It requires the operator to reduce amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. I can see the operator offered the reduced PCN of £20 as stipulated in the code of practice when the appellant appealed and provided evidence of their receipt.

To provide some context: the PCN was issued for not paying for parking. The operator changed this once the appellant had appealed to them and proved they did pay for parking, but they didn’t enter their correct vehicle registration when paying. The operator offered the £20 reduced PCN during the initial appeals stage.

As their vehicle was on site without a payment for the full, correct vehicle registration, the operator had to write to the DVLA to gain the registered keeper’s details. The DVLA charge the operator’s every time they need to get the registered keepers details.

The PCN was then issued to state there was no payment for '******'. It is only after the PCN is issued and the appellant appealed and told the operator and they paid for their other vehicle registration; the operator was able to determine that they were a legitimate user. The operator then offered the £20 reduced PCN which the BPA stipulate is the process purely to recoup the money they had to pay to the DVLA.

I note they feel the operator was discriminating against them due to their dyslexia.

The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not.

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant has a disability. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. 

The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. As such, the operator would issue a PCN in these circumstances regardless of the circumstances. What actions an operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge.

While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the discrimination, I do not consider that the operator has applied any unfavourable treatment. Furthermore, I do not consider that the operator has demonstrated any discrimination, nor do I understand why the appellant believed this was the case. For clarity, any motorist parking in breach of the conditions of the parking contract would have been issued with a PCN.

I also appreciate they will take this to BPA and their solicitor. POPLA’s role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly. Although I acknowledge that the appellant may look to take further action, I am only able to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly or not based on the evidence available at the time of the assessment. Any further action the appellant wishes to take would have no effect on my decision.

Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the evidence proves that the appellant never entered their full, correct vehicle registration when at the gym ((  i was at the beach for a walk not the gym dont know where they got from ? )) and were therefore in breach of the site’s terms and conditions.

This PCN was issued correctly and the operator dealt with the initial appeal appropriately. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

POPLA don't understand the Equality Act which is NOT ABOUT TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME. Quite the opposite.  And charging for a keying error is obviously discriminating against someone with dyslexia.  

Sigh!

Live the fact she's also copied and pasted words about a gym when this wasn't at a gym.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

You'd win this if they try a small claim.

Here's my reply to your post in POPLA DECISIONS:

Coupon-mad said:

BeachWalker said:

Hi my thread link
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556773/wrong-reg-parking-fine#latest

Brittannia Parking 
Flamborough North Landing 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as they failed to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that:

 • They paid for parking but the parking machine never gave them a parking ticket it just said the payment was successful.

• They apologise if they input their vehicle registration in incorrectly and there was only one car in the car park if that helps to track the payment.

• They feel the reduced PCN of £20 is still insulting and amounts to a scam.

• They feel the PCN is also discriminatory as they are dyslexic and they feel there has been unethical treatment based on their disability.

• They will take this further to the British Parking Association (BPA) and their solicitor. The appellant reiterated and expanded on their version of events in the motorist’s comments section stating:

• They entered their other vehicle registration in error – ****** The appellant included photographic evidence of their parking payment bank statement in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

Whilst assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When considering an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract and that the car park is to pay for parking and to enter the full, correct vehicle registration when doing so.

The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images proves the appellant was parked on site for 33 minutes.

The operator has provided an information report to prove there was payment for the appellant’s vehicle registration and others were able to pay for parking.

Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included of their bank statement which proves they paid for parking but does not prove their payment was a valid payment for the car they were driving on the date in question.

I note the appellant's comments and appreciate that they paid for parking and that they feel the £20 reduced PCN offered is insulting and amounts to a scam. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 17.4B requires parking operators to have a process for dealing with major keying errors, where more than one character have been incorrectly entered or not entered at all. It requires the operator to reduce amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. I can see the operator offered the reduced PCN of £20 as stipulated in the code of practice when the appellant appealed and provided evidence of their receipt.

To provide some context: the PCN was issued for not paying for parking. The operator changed this once the appellant had appealed to them and proved they did pay for parking, but they didn’t enter their correct vehicle registration when paying. The operator offered the £20 reduced PCN during the initial appeals stage.

As their vehicle was on site without a payment for the full, correct vehicle registration, the operator had to write to the DVLA to gain the registered keeper’s details. The DVLA charge the operator’s every time they need to get the registered keepers details.

The PCN was then issued to state there was no payment for '******'. It is only after the PCN is issued and the appellant appealed and told the operator and they paid for their other vehicle registration; the operator was able to determine that they were a legitimate user. The operator then offered the £20 reduced PCN which the BPA stipulate is the process purely to recoup the money they had to pay to the DVLA.

I note they feel the operator was discriminating against them due to their dyslexia.

The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not.

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant has a disability. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. 

The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. As such, the operator would issue a PCN in these circumstances regardless of the circumstances. What actions an operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge.

While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the discrimination, I do not consider that the operator has applied any unfavourable treatment. Furthermore, I do not consider that the operator has demonstrated any discrimination, nor do I understand why the appellant believed this was the case. For clarity, any motorist parking in breach of the conditions of the parking contract would have been issued with a PCN.

I also appreciate they will take this to BPA and their solicitor. POPLA’s role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly. Although I acknowledge that the appellant may look to take further action, I am only able to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly or not based on the evidence available at the time of the assessment. Any further action the appellant wishes to take would have no effect on my decision.

Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the evidence proves that the appellant never entered their full, correct vehicle registration when at the gym ((  i was at the beach for a walk not the gym dont know where they got from ? )) and were therefore in breach of the site’s terms and conditions.

This PCN was issued correctly and the operator dealt with the initial appeal appropriately. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

POPLA don't understand the Equality Act which is NOT ABOUT TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME. Quite the opposite.  And charging for a keying error is obviously discriminating against someone with dyslexia.  

Sigh!

Live the fact she's also copied and pasted words about a gym when this wasn't at a gym.

Thanks for reading and postive support. Was nowhere near a gym lol.  I just started to read struggling with Newbie FaQs figure out what to do next, i fear said to much as I'd told Brittannia I was driving parking up Wifes car. 
Also I'm moving house new adress in 2 weeks time n read your best letting them know your new aadress does this mean let Brittannia know?