My POPLA's appeal REFUSED - what should I do now?

GinaGrey

What should I do now?

The parking machine was saying PAYMENT APPROVED (I have a photo of that, time and geo location of that photo too) so I assumed the payment was made - this wasn't a pay and display parking. So I didn't need to display the ticket.

However I asked for the printout (transaction receipt), which wasn't compulsory, and only when I got the parking fine I noticed on the printout that the transaction was void. However the text on the parking machine's screen said PAYMENT APPROVED.

I just think the machine was faulty and it definitely misled me. Until the moment I got the fine I was 100% sure I paid for that parking!

In their decision they say that I should still have checked the receipt (is that a legal requirement? I mean, there was an option NOT to print out the receipt!) AND MY BANK ACCOUNT (when? right there on the parking lot?) and they started explaining that at the time of paying for the ticket I was still within the 10 minute free period so that may have caused the transaction to void? But is that my fault?

I really don't think I should pay so much for a faulty machine.

What would you do if you were me? Thanks for your help xx

---------------------------

Here's their decision:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

xxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They went to the machine and typed their vehicle registration number and used their card before pressing the button to receive a ticket because they wanted a transaction, but they didn’t have to ask for this as there was no option not to. • The machine took a moment but then printed a ticket and the machine stated the payment had been approved so everything looked fine. • After receiving the PCN fine they realised the machine never processed their payment, but they had no intention of avoiding a payment. • They say the machine is broken because the screen should display an error instead of saying the payment was approved so says this was misleading, and they have a photograph they took with their phone. • They have other photos that shows its not a pay and display site and a receipt is not required because there is a yes and no option. • They say they were honest in their appeal to the operator and provided evidence, but it was still rejected because the machine was broken. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in relation to the machine being faulty and says the user guide is irrelevant as it shows the need to wait for a ticket but its not pay and display, so a ticket is not compulsory. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal. • The optional receipt. • Evidence that the receipt is not mandatory. • Evidence that there is no pay and display at this parking. • Evidence the payment was approved by the machine. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant has stated they approached the machine and entered their vehicle details and requested a ticket that was optional, and the machine stated the payment had been approved so they believed everything was fine. I note the appellants comments and have viewed their evidence which includes the option to received a ticket by pressing yes or no, evidence the receipt is not mandatory, and evidence the payment was approved by the machine, however its still a motorists responsibility to either checked the ticket they have asked for, or their bank account if paying by card and not requesting a ticket to ensure the payment was successful and they had adhered to the terms and conditions of the car park to avoid a PCN being issued. The terms and conditions shown within the signage tell motorists they must pay for the full duration of their stay or a £100 PCN charge will be issued. The terms and conditions show the payment options like the mobile app or payment machine, but they do not state that a ticket from the machine is required, so this is why all drivers must check their payment had been made accordingly before exiting the site, regardless of what method they chose, and the payment methods are also shown on the entrance sign provided by the appellant. The appellant’s vehicle was at the site for 35 minutes, so they were required to pay £1.60 for up to an hour as hey had exceeded the 10 minutes free stay time. However, the operator has provided a transaction report that doesn’t show any payments for vehicle registration, xxxx so this caused the PCN to be issued. In relation to the machine, the operator has provided a full transaction report that shows other motorists who paid at the machine as evidence they were not faulty at the time the appellant visited, so although evidence has been provided their appeal was rejected. The appellants evidence showing the machines message shows it was taken at 11:17, so as their vehicle entered at 11:15 they were still within the 10 minute free period so may have caused the transaction to void. In any case, the appellant should have viewed the ticket they chose to obtain that clearly states it’s a void transaction receipt and not a parking ticket. On reviewing the operators case file, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in relation to the machine being faulty and says the user guide is irrelevant as it shows the need to wait for a ticket, but it’s not pay and display, so a ticket is not compulsory. As I have considered these issues above, I will not comment further. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant didn’t pay, so therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

ChirpyChicken

Contact the land owner 
Never pay
Ignore Debt recovery letters

GinaGrey

ChirpyChicken said:

Contact the land owner 
Never pay
Ignore Debt recovery letters

Thanks! Why would I need to contact the land owner?

Coupon-mad

To complain. That's Plan A.

Sounds like you haven't yet read NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST at the top of the forum (where my signature says).

GinaGrey

Coupon-mad said:

To complain. That's Plan A.

Sounds like you haven't yet read NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST at the top of the forum (where my signature says).

Thanks! I've found it, sorry! It looked empty (it said test post) but then I saw page1, sorry! So I'll complain to the owner - my POPLA appeal has already been rejected. And Parking Eye already has this in their paperwork just in case I guess:

"You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges"

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’"

So I guess if the landowner rejects my complaint - I'll just wait for a Letter Before Claim? Do I honestly wait for the small claims court? Or do I pay - I mean, what chances of winning do I have? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Of course you can't argue about 'GPEOL' which we all know went out ten years ago in Beavis.  Not sure where you found that old appeal from. And none of us regulars need to be told about the Beavis case!

Anyway no paying it.

Even POPLA recognised your defence:

"The machine took a moment but then printed a ticket and the machine stated the payment had been approved so everything looked fine".

This is covered in the incoming statutory Code of Practice, once Labour get their finger out. POPLA are not independent but a Judge is.

GinaGrey

Coupon-mad said:

Of course you can't argue about 'GPEOL' which we all know went out ten years ago in Beavis.  Not sure where you found that old appeal from. And none of us regulars need to be told about the Beavis case!

Anyway no paying it.

Even POPLA recognised your defence:

"The machine took a moment but then printed a ticket and the machine stated the payment had been approved so everything looked fine".

This is covered in the incoming statutory Code of Practice, once Labour get their finger out. POPLA are not independent but a Judge is.

Parkingeye quoted that in their paperwork they submitted to POPLA - and I was able to read it during the process

GinaGrey

Coupon-mad said:

Of course you can't argue about 'GPEOL' which we all know went out ten years ago in Beavis.  Not sure where you found that old appeal from. And none of us regulars need to be told about the Beavis case!

Anyway no paying it.

Even POPLA recognised your defence:

"The machine took a moment but then printed a ticket and the machine stated the payment had been approved so everything looked fine".

This is covered in the incoming statutory Code of Practice, once Labour get their finger out. POPLA are not independent but a Judge is.

They also admitted that the system wasn't entirely right: "The appellants evidence showing the machines message shows it was taken at 11:17, so as their vehicle entered at 11:15 they were still within the 10 minute free period so may have caused the transaction to void."

But us idiots shared our void transaction ticket with them! If we didn't do it - our appeal would have been accepted as the screen showing PAYMENT APPROVED would have been the only proof. But we were honest/really stupid! and shared everything.

Now the question is - the transaction ticket was not something obligatory - we could have opted not to print it, but we did. And we only looked at it properly when we got the parking charge! Where does that put us? Thanks so much for your time! xxx

Coupon-mad

Search the Code of practice for the word void. 

As I said, it's already covered.

GinaGrey

Coupon-mad said:

Search the Code of practice for the word void. 

As I said, it's already covered.

Thanks! I've checked in the CURRENT Code of practice (27th June 2024) and there is no mention of the word void. So there is nothing in there that could help me defend my case if I end up in court.

Coupon-mad

 But I had said "This is covered in the incoming statutory Code of Practice".

The joke 'code' by the scumbag industry themselves isn't a creature of statute.