Euro Car Parks POPLA appeal

Perdusys1955

Apologies if I should not have started a new thread, but I have searched and cannot find anything similar, I was the driver and the fee is payable.

I've had an appeal to Euro Car Parks rejected because they cannot tie up my payment with the registration of my car, in spite of sending them a copy of the bank statement showing the payment to the shopping centre which includes their location ID.

I did not realise that contactless payments via Apple Pay do not use the same last 4 digits as on the bank card, so this is the substatiating evidence given to them on their rejection of my appeal. The original appeal gave them the copy of the bank statement, a screenshot of the payment showing their location ID etc. They rejected saying they could not tie up this payment with reg number, and sent a list of cars and times which did not include our car.

On the substantiating evidence, I stated that the payment went through on the following day and gave the last 4 digits of bank card as requested. There is also a bit in their letter about dummy card digits for Apple Pay, but I did not realise what they meant. This car park is ANPR and pay on exit, which we did. I didn not ask for a receipt, we use this car park frequently.Their latest rejection suggests their was a "major keying error" when purchasing a pay and display ticket/mobile payment session. I'm sure this is not possible as you need the correct registration to bring up the amount to pay.

I tried to add the Apple Pay digits when I realised, but their website does not allow me to, and there is no email contact to let them know. I was on the point of posting them a letter when I received another rejection letter telling me to pay £20 or go to POPLA.

I now have a further reference number from my bank, but the stalling point seems to be their inability to tie up the payment and the registration. Is there any point in doing the POPLA appeal, or do we wait to see if they want to take it to court? This is all for a £1.80 parking charge!!

Coupon-mad

As they offered the awful £20 'settlement' scam covered by the self-serving joint code, there's no point in trying POPLA.

Wait to see if they want to take it to court, which they will via DCB Legal, later this year or next year. All cases are discontinued before hearings so the court claim is your 'end game' dispute resolution. Very very easy but tell ECP if you change address at any point before this is resolved (6 years court limitation period).

What about Plan A or isn't it a retail park?

Perdusys1955

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82013120#Comment_82013120

Plan A? It is a shopping mall, Eastgate Centre. The shops have their own payment systems, so our statement showing "Eastgate" can only mean the car park. I have tested the pay point used today, and you can not put in a wrong registration, so I am not sure how we would have entered a keying error as they are now trying to say. I'm not sure what the print out they sent is trying to prove, there is no clue to the search criteria.

Strangely, a visit to our bank to see if they had any other reference details for the payment resulted in the clerk telling us that they have seen an increase in similar problems with this car park.

Gr1pr

Plan A is listed in the 1st post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum, an essential read for all

A strong complaint about it to retail park management company or landlord or landowner ( or business. )

Plan A is always the best option in these private parking company cases ( not an appeal. )

Perdusys1955

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82013683#Comment_82013683

Thanks, I did read the thread, but thought I had gone far enough down. Obviously not.

I will complain to the Management Companyh, especially in view of the comments made by the bank.

Perdusys1955

As a follow up to this, my complaint to the management of the centre was totally ignored, so against advice I did take it to POPLA as I thought it was so obvious that we had paid with all the evidence we had. The appeal was accepted in August, and we were told there was nothing to pay. A few days ago, we had an email saying there had been a procedural error, and they we re assessing the case. No surprise then that they have changed their decision in facer of ECP.

This is their statement:

Before I begin my assessment I find it important to explain that I am completing a reassessment as evidence was missed during the first assessment of this case. I am considering all evidence during my assessment of this appeal. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the PCN correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs make it clear that up to 1 hour is £1.10 and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The signs also state payment must be made at the end of your visit to cover the full length of stay and to ensure that the full and correct registration is entered when making payment. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land 34 minutes in total. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and note they say payment was made for their stay. I have viewed a copy of the letter and the payment made to the operator. I can see that the operator has confirmed since this evidence was provided it managed to locate their payment made of 14 April 2026 which corresponds with the date of the event. However, this payment was not valid as the full and correct vehicle registration was not inputted when they paid. The operator’s transaction report shows a payment of £1.10 made at 16:04 was assigned to registration ‘N’ which is not the full, correct vehicle registration as such, it is clear a major keying error was made. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Subsection major keying error examples such where there are digits missing. In this case by entering the letter ‘N’ only, there are more than one digit missing and therefore, this matter is classed as a major keying error. The operator offered the £20 reduction for 14 days after reviewing the appellant’s evidence of the payment to letter ‘N’ as it located it on the system on the date. The £20 reduction is offered for 14 days in order to cover the costs incurred with applying to the DVLA for the keeper’s information and other costs in issuing the PCN. The appellant rejected this offer resulting in the PCN now increasing to the £100 amount. I am satisfied the operator met the requirements of section F.3a of the Code. I note they place blame on the machines however, in order to rebut the appellant’s challenges to the machines being at fault, the operator has provided a copy of the transaction logs which shows that there was the ability to pay on the date of the event as other motorists were successfully doing so. Therefore, I cannot hold the machine to fault when it is clear that it was working. The machines are programmed to accept a motorist’s input of the vehicle registration. As some vehicle registrations can be shorter/longer than a standard vehicle registration due to personalisation, the machine does not have the technology to identify when a vehicle is being entered incorrectly. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure it has been entered correctly. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the car park. As the vehicle parked without a valid payment, I am satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is refused.

Apart from the fact that I don't see how the machine could give us a price for parking if the number plate wasn't recognised, surely they agree we have paid, and the fact that "major keying error" is part of the code, surely common sense tells you parking was paid for, which was the grounds for the PCN. My question now is, is this worth taking to court?

Coupon-mad

"My question now is, is this worth taking to court?"

Obviously yes. Haven't you seen what happens to Euro Car Parks claims in the end? Wow. Read @Umkomaas' thread.

Perdusys1955

I have requested all the evidence from POPLA under an SAR as advised, they have confirmed they will send everything including the reason that they agreed to re assess the case after their decision on ECP's concerns about a procerdural error.

I would need the evidence as I can't access any on the POPLA site, when ECP instruct their debt collectors, is it simply a request for payment? I am assuming by this stage they are not interested in any questioning of the result etc. Is it worth contacting ECP with the video showing it is impossible to put in a single digit?

James_Poisson

So POPLA are now software experts:

The machines are programmed to accept a motorist’s input of the vehicle registration. As some vehicle registrations can be shorter/longer than a standard vehicle registration due to personalisation, the machine does not have the technology to identify when a vehicle is being entered incorrectly.

But the system has the technology to accept payment for a VRN that doesn't exist, and generate a PCN from that, how convenient!

Coupon-mad

"Is it worth contacting ECP with the video showing it is impossible to put in a single digit?"

No, but DO send your evidence to the CMA, to add another nail in ECP's coffin.

Perdusys1955

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82168470#Comment_82168470

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the CMA? I have checked the acronyms post on the sticky but can't see it on there?