Euro Car parks machine produced a ticket and conned me into thinking I have paid!

Coupon-mad

Just copy & paste it then add paragraph breaks before posting the comment.

stop_robin_customrs

Thank you shall do

stop_robin_customrs

Hi I hope this is Correct:  POPLA decision : Euro Car parks

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • They have used the car park previously for several years and on the day in question, they attempted to pay at the machine. • The machine would not accept payment and kept producing errors. • On the fourth or fifth attempt, it went through the full process accepted payment and issued a ticket as usual. • They assumed this ticket meant payment had been made so continued with their day. • On receiving the PCN, they noticed the ticket states void in very small text. • As this is not their first time they had used the car park, they find it unacceptable the machine failed to take payment at least three times. • There was clearly a technical issue with the machine and the screen was difficult to see as it was dirty and in monocolour. • The machine should not produce a ticket if no payment is taken. • They are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided two images of a void transaction receipt. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm motorists are required to py for the full duration of their stay and failure to do so will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. These signs also confirm the site offers ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone as alternative payment methods. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 22 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction records which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. While I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, on reviewing the two parking receipts they have provided, these clearly state this is a void transaction receipt and not a parking ticket. POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. In response to the appellants grounds of appeal, the operator has provided the payment machine transaction report from the day in question. This confirms other motorists were able to make payment without issue demonstrating the payment machine was in working order. Other transaction reports provided also confirm the three alternative payment methods, ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone were also working without issue. The appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate there were any technical faults with the payment machines on the day in question. While I appreciate the appellant has demonstrated the intention to pay, ultimately, it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have made a valid payment before leaving the vehicle parked. In this instance, had the appellant reviewed the receipt, they would have been aware the payment had not been accepted and there would have been sufficient tome to use one of the available payment apps to make payment. By failing to make a valid payment, the terms and conditions have been breached. I note the appellant has advised they are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is solely to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. We have no involvement in payments. Should the appellant wish to discuss this matter further, they will need to contact the operator directly. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. I recognise the appellant has asked several questions regarding how the operator manages the site. As an appeals service, it is not within POPLAs remit to comment on how a parking operator chooses to manage car parks it is responsible for. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Le_Kirk

Can you please edit your post and break up that wall of text with some paragraph breaks and remove all that white space below - it looks like you leant on your enter/return key!

Coupon-mad

You haven't posted it with any paragraph breaks (please add ten) and you didn't post it in the POPLA Decisions thread.

stop_robin_customrs

Hi
Apologies all and thanks for your patients with me trying to get a grip with this.  I'll post it in the right spot with brakes of a few paragraphs in between each paragraph.

stop_robin_customrs

Is this format below correct?  I'll then post on the POPLA tread once it's ok, please advise.  Thanks

POPLA decision : Euro Car parks

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • They have used the car park previously for several years and on the day in question, they attempted to pay at the machine. • The machine would not accept payment and kept producing errors. • On the fourth or fifth attempt, it went through the full process accepted payment and issued a ticket as usual. • They assumed this ticket meant payment had been made so continued with their day. • On receiving the PCN, they noticed the ticket states void in very small text. • As this is not their first time they had used the car park, they find it unacceptable the machine failed to take payment at least three times. • There was clearly a technical issue with the machine and the screen was difficult to see as it was dirty and in monocolour. • The machine should not produce a ticket if no payment is taken. • They are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided two images of a void transaction receipt. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm motorists are required to py for the full duration of their stay and failure to do so will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. These signs also confirm the site offers ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone as alternative payment methods. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 22 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction records which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. While I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, on reviewing the two parking receipts they have provided, these clearly state this is a void transaction receipt and not a parking ticket. POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. In response to the appellants grounds of appeal, the operator has provided the payment machine transaction report from the day in question. This confirms other motorists were able to make payment without issue demonstrating the payment machine was in working order. Other transaction reports provided also confirm the three alternative payment methods, ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone were also working without issue. The appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate there were any technical faults with the payment machines on the day in question. While I appreciate the appellant has demonstrated the intention to pay, ultimately, it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have made a valid payment before leaving the vehicle parked. In this instance, had the appellant reviewed the receipt, they would have been aware the payment had not been accepted and there would have been sufficient tome to use one of the available payment apps to make payment. By failing to make a valid payment, the terms and conditions have been breached. I note the appellant has advised they are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is solely to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. We have no involvement in payments. Should the appellant wish to discuss this matter further, they will need to contact the operator directly. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. I recognise the appellant has asked several questions regarding how the operator manages the site. As an appeals service, it is not within POPLAs remit to comment on how a parking operator chooses to manage car parks it is responsible for. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

 

Coupon-mad

No. That's a wall of text.

Add paragraphing please! Read how I showed my POPLA outcome yesterday in POPLA Decisions.

FrankCannon

POPLA decision : Euro Car parks

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below.
 • They have used the car park previously for several years and on the day in question, they attempted to pay at the machine.
 • The machine would not accept payment and kept producing errors.
 • On the fourth or fifth attempt, it went through the full process accepted payment and issued a ticket as usual.
 • They assumed this ticket meant payment had been made so continued with their day.
 • On receiving the PCN, they noticed the ticket states void in very small text.
 • As this is not their first time they had used the car park, they find it unacceptable the machine failed to take payment at least three times.
 • There was clearly a technical issue with the machine and the screen was difficult to see as it was dirty and in monocolour.
 • The machine should not produce a ticket if no payment is taken.
 • They are happy to pay the £6.50 fee.

On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided two images of a void transaction receipt. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm motorists are required to py for the full duration of their stay and failure to do so will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. These signs also confirm the site offers ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone as alternative payment methods.

The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 22 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction records which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. While I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, on reviewing the two parking receipts they have provided, these clearly state this is a void transaction receipt and not a parking ticket.

POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. In response to the appellants grounds of appeal, the operator has provided the payment machine transaction report from the day in question. This confirms other motorists were able to make payment without issue demonstrating the payment machine was in working order. Other transaction reports provided also confirm the three alternative payment methods, ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone were also working without issue.

The appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate there were any technical faults with the payment machines on the day in question. While I appreciate the appellant has demonstrated the intention to pay, ultimately, it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have made a valid payment before leaving the vehicle parked. In this instance, had the appellant reviewed the receipt, they would have been aware the payment had not been accepted and there would have been sufficient tome to use one of the available payment apps to make payment.

By failing to make a valid payment, the terms and conditions have been breached. I note the appellant has advised they are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is solely to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. We have no involvement in payments. Should the appellant wish to discuss this matter further, they will need to contact the operator directly. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal.

As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. I recognise the appellant has asked several questions regarding how the operator manages the site. As an appeals service, it is not within POPLAs remit to comment on how a parking operator chooses to manage car parks it is responsible for. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Are we ever going to see this one in POPLA Decisions I wonder?