Initial Parking at Abersoch

Mickstercf

Hi all,

I’ve read the NEWBIES thread and would really appreciate some advice on an Initial Parking PCN at Abersoch Village Hall Car Park.

The vehicle was parked there on 31 July 2026, from approximately 19:27 to 20:35 according to Initial’s ANPR.

The parking tariff was paid at the machine. It was £3, sufficient to cover the whole stay. I have banking evidence showing the £3 transaction as “ABERSOCH HALL ABERSOCH”.

Despite this, Initial Parking issued a PCN saying that the appropriate parking time had not been purchased.

I appealed as registered keeper, supplied the banking evidence and asked Initial to check their payment records.

They have now rejected the appeal, but importantly they have found the payment. They say the payment was associated with only the first two characters of the vehicle’s VRM.

For anonymity, I’ll refer to those two characters as “AB”. They correspond to the first two characters of the actual VRM.

Initial have classified this as a Major Keying Error under the BPA Code and reduced the charge to £20. They have also supplied a POPLA code.

I do not accept that the driver simply entered two characters of the registration and stopped. My suspicion is that there may have been a problem with the payment machine/input system.

Why I suspect a machine issue

I’ve found what seems to be an extraordinarily similar case at the exact same Abersoch Village Hall car park, involving the exact same operator:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625857/initial-park-at-abersoch-village-hal

In that case the motorist said they entered their registration and paid. Initial initially claimed there had been no payment. After the motorist produced banking evidence, Initial found the payment but said that only two letters (“SS”) had been entered.

So we apparently have:

Same operator – Initial Parking
Same car park – Abersoch Village Hall
Parking tariff paid
PCN subsequently issued
Payment subsequently located
Only TWO characters of the VRM recorded

In the previous case: “SS”.

In mine: the first two characters of my VRM.

I’ve since found several other MSE threads involving remarkably similar problems.

This one describes a payment machine which would accept only two characters before automatically moving on to the payment stage. The driver apparently tried three times and got the same result:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6485843/popla-appeal-ecp-nth-and-major-keying-error

Another motorist reports that they began entering their registration but after the first two characters the machine printed the ticket:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6302025/pcn-but-i-paid-at-the-machine-full-reg-no-wasnt-input-machine-at-fault

Another thread concerns a PCN where only the first two characters of the registration were recorded:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556813/incomplete-car-reg

And this more recent discussion is specifically about keying errors/payment-machine design:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6657029/keying-errors-on-payment-machines

I’ve also found this court case discussed on MSE where the motorist maintained that they had entered their registration correctly but the parking company’s log showed a partial registration:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6582662/claim-form-for-pcn-help-with-defence/p6

The motorist won in court. From the account posted on MSE, the judge considered the reliability of the machine/log evidence and the fact that there were other anomalous/partial registrations in the operator’s data. Obviously that’s not a binding precedent, but it seems highly relevant to the factual question of whether a partial VRM in an operator’s database necessarily proves that the motorist only entered those characters.

There is also this older MSE case discussing a court decision where the judge found on the balance of probabilities that the motorist had entered the VRM correctly and the machine had failed to record/print it correctly:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5785805/6-year-old-pcn-county-claim-form-received/p9

What I’ve done so far

Following the NEWBIES advice, I’ve now gone down Plan A and complained directly to the Abersoch Village Hall trustees/landowner.

I’ve sent them:

• the evidence showing the £3 Abersoch Hall payment;
• Initial Parking’s appeal rejection confirming that they’ve located the payment but claim only two VRM characters were recorded;
• details of the other almost identical Abersoch Village Hall case.

I’ve asked the trustees to instruct Initial to cancel the PCN and also asked them to investigate whether their payment machine has a history of recording truncated registrations.

For context, I paid well over £100 in parking charges during that week in the Abersoch area, so there was plainly no intention to avoid paying a £3 parking tariff.

I’m now waiting briefly for the landowner’s response before using POPLA, while obviously making sure I don’t miss the POPLA deadline.

My proposed POPLA argument

If Plan A doesn’t work, I’m thinking that I shouldn’t concede that this was a Major Keying Error by the driver.

Instead, I’d dispute Initial’s assertion that the driver caused the incomplete VRM and put them to strict proof.

It seems to me there is an important distinction:

Evidence that Initial’s system stored only two characters is not necessarily evidence that the motorist entered only two characters.

I’d therefore want Initial to produce the relevant PDT/payment-machine transaction log, suitably redacted, including other partial/invalid VRMs recorded around the relevant period.

I’d also like them to provide evidence that the machine was functioning correctly and, if possible, any relevant fault/maintenance information.

If their log contains a significant number of one/two/three-character registrations, that would seem highly relevant to whether this is actually a series of inexplicable mistakes by motorists or a problem with the machine/interface.

I’m particularly suspicious because we already appear to have two separate cases at Abersoch Village Hall where Initial located a valid payment but their system apparently contained only two VRM characters.

I’d really appreciate the regulars’ thoughts:

1. Am I right to pursue Plan A with the landowner before submitting POPLA, provided I protect the POPLA deadline?
2. Is disputing that a driver keying error occurred, rather than arguing about whether £20 is reasonable, the right approach?
3. At POPLA should I specifically put Initial to strict proof with the full redacted PDT log and evidence that the payment machine was functioning correctly?
4. Does anyone remember any other Abersoch Village Hall / Initial Parking cases involving truncated VRMs?
5. Is there anything else I should be asking the landowner or including in a future POPLA appeal?

Thanks for any advice.

Mickstercf

Response from Abersoch Village Hall:
Dear Sir

A reply from the parking Company With regard

Wyn.

We diligently try to find payments for parking before a PCN is issued.
That weekend, the car park at Abersoch will have typically seen in
excess of 1000 vehicles and there wasn’t an issue reported with any of
the payment machines at that time and of course, the vast majority of
motorists will have successfully paid for parking using the payment
machines. I am sure there may have been several incidences of vehicle
registration input errors made by motorists over that period, but these
will have been detected by the diligent searching protocols we adopt,
but if a vehicle registration number is entered incorrectly with so many
characters missing, it is not always possible to trace a payment before
a PCN is raised. If subsequently, an appeal by a motorist uncovers the
possibility that a payment for parking may have been made, we follow the
best practice guidelines as laid down by our governing body, the
British Parking Authority. They recommend that the original PCN be
reduced to £20 for a major keying error incident, as our letter to the
motorist states. I’m not sure what else could have been reasonably done
given those circumstances

 

Does this help with your understanding of the matter?

Jame4ters

So who do you believe? The parking company or yourself and the other poster who had a similar issue. I know who I would believe and it wouldn’t be Initial Parking.

Your case has got all the hallmarks of a faulty machine so it’s not a keying error, major or minor.

silverwhistle

Reasonably done? Tie up the payment of which you have evidence with the two characters of your vehicle. A simple enough search on computer records.

Either way I wouldn't believe them, hiding behind their own body, the BPA.

I had an issue with a parking machine within my local Lidl, but that was quashed when I produced a receipt proving purchases, but the response to my complaint to the supermarket manager was shrugged shoulders, and a comment that 'They'd been having problems with their machines'!

If they hadn't cancelled the charge I would have been asking for all their logs for the day…

Coupon-mad

Have you seen Lynda Eagan's video in the BBC article about machines that cause keying errors?

This isn't caused by a driver error, as you have seen. It is commonly seen with Euro Car Parks and Excel Parking Services, who use old machines and know full well what's actually going on, look:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/i-d-rather-go-to-prison-than-pay-140-euro-car-parks-fine-320781/

Same is happening at Abersoch.

"obviously making sure I don’t miss the POPLA deadline."

Absolutely NOT. Do not try it! You'll lose.

You have no chance at POPLA because they just spout the self-serving (very poor) joke Joint Code. It's all their untrained assessors understand.

Forget that.

In court, you would undoubtedly win but Initial are not especially litigious, so it isn't likely to go that far. But if it does, come back. Defence is EASIER THAN POPLA!

Oh, and how about doing something important: sending your dossier of examples to the CMA?

You've read about their investigations into this industry? Please send your evidence and all those linked case examples you collated to the CMA by email.

At the moment the CMA seems to have been duped into thinking the £20 settlement is reasonable. It's mentioned like it's a good thing, in their (sadly poor) video for consumers, which reads like the BPA and IPC wrote a list of their own touted 'consumer responsibilities' and persuaded the CMA that is a fair 'guide'!

It's not a good or fair guide and the CMA will realise that soon. They seem to be too reliant on the BPA and IPC right now, sigh!

Anyway, lots of parking firms could end up hugely fined hundreds of thousands.

This is a massive fightback opportunity.

Contact emails (use both, the first one goes directly to their parking investigation):

parking@cma.gov.uk

general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk 

To help push for real change, because the below is also relevant to your unfair PCN, you could also add these wider concerns at the end of your email, under a heading:

WIDER CONCERNS ABOUT POSTAL PCNs, EXCESSIVE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE AND SHORT TIME 'DISCOUNT' PRESSURE:

There is a wider serious concern about operators choosing remote camera surveillance and screens because it's cheap and requires no human intervention before the first letter hits the keeper's doormat.

Whilst you did get offered the disingenuous industry-invented scam '£20 settlement' this is NOT a fair demand and you would not have paid that in a million years!

This is because this wasn't a keying error caused by the driver. It was a very typical machine set-up that causes the system to move onto the payment screen prematurely.

Further, according to the ICO guidance, matters of cheaper cost and a leaner business model isn't a valid justification to use ANPR or CCTV as a first resort.

It also unfairly shifts the burden unfairly to motorists to use a broken keypad (and somehow know it has gone wrong re the VRM recorded by the system) or face £100 'fine' and risk of being sued.

This is not a reason to impose 24/7 surveillance at retail sites or elsewhere on private land. The fact it is common doesn't make it lawful.

Just like wheelclamping - which was made a criminal offence in 2012 - what ANPR/CCTV parking firms are now doing is only 'the norm' because it has become so by stealth, because parking management is offered 'free'. But the MO of these firms is predatory, only making money if they penalise xxx number of ordinary people per week, per site.

This skewed and all too common (18 million per annum) PCN threat comes with great social cost and consumer harm and it is catastrophically affecting confidence in high streets.

The MHCLG will likely be able to confirm exact figures (from parking firm 'census' figures and recent fact-gathering from trade bodies in readiness for the statutory Code of Practice) but it has been estimated that some 95% of 'managed' private land sites in the UK are run 'free of charge' by operators.

This is not a fair model. It should not operate at all in the UK.

This protection racket-style MO is the biggest consumer protection concern of all: should this not be illegal:

…what other consumer-facing sector works like it? This sector (mainly) only make any money, or make the vast majority of income from a site, when they penalise lots of motorists. It is believed the landowner gets all/part of the tariff income and the ANPR firm only makes big money if they catch people out.

Due to this inherent incentive to issue as many PCNs as possible and not be open to cancelling many/any on appeal, the suspicion is that systems are set up in a way that will deliberately catch out some 1% of motorists.

Parking operators exert far too much anti-consumer control over private land. In the main, they 'call the shots' - selling the service and system that THEY want to run, persuading landowners because it is free and includes data/footfall reports.

Most operators are not paid and are NOT merely implementing rules set by their client. Parking firms wouldn't run the site otherwise because they aren't paid by the landowner client. Penalising 1% of visitors to a busy hospital or retail park is a lot of unfair PCNs, per week.

Finally, across the board with this industry, the paltry '14 days discount' on their (second class posted) PCN is an inadequate time allowance for postal PCNs.

Like the false 'debt recovery fee' - which is in fact double recovery of the same letter-chain heads of cost already covered by the PCN - the 14 day timeline was completely invented by this greedy sector and it only exists in their self-serving Code of Practice because "they say it does".

The industry should not be using the wrong (too short) discount period that only applies to windscreen PCNs served on the day. 14 days is a 'blink-and-you-miss it' unfair timeline which cannot be described as a fair or timely consumer notice when it arrives by post.

This is why not:

A mere 14 days at the discount doesn't mirror the Local authority rules for camera PCNs issued by post.

The British Parking Association is well aware that comparable local authority rules relating to camera-issued PCNs must offer discounts for 21 days from service delivery). It is bad enough that the private parking industry invented a 40% discount to make more money (councils offer 50% which is easier to calculate and inherently more likely to encourage early settlement).

The first iteration of the Code cannot start with an insufficient discount period, made up by this sector a decade or more ago. 14 days goes against the mirroring of the local authority model and is only suitable for windscreen PCNs, not postal notices received by a third party weeks later.

Bookends

The village hall at Abersoch is run by a registered charity (215072 on the Register fofCharities) and the car park is their major earner. The latest accounts show an income of about £118,000. Copy your complaint about Initial's antics to the trustees and make them aware - spoiler they should already be aware! - that they are jointly responsible for the actions of their chosen agents and should they not cancel you will join them in any further action Initial might choose to take.

1505grandad

"They seem to be too reliant on the BPA and IPC right now, sigh!"

Just like the DVLA who have no qualms selling motorists private data while relying on the compliance of the ATA's self-serving anti-fairness CoP of this out of control unregulated industry with no human intervention, disgusted sigh.

James_Poisson

Ridiculous ANPR payment linked technology is unregulated and installed purely for the convenience of the operator, why should you have to pay them £20 when it goes wrong.

They cannot argue that all other details were logged correctly on the day yours didn't and the system should prompt that if it felt there was a possible error not carry on regardless, I can use a Tesco self service check out it might throw a wobbly for me but not another all day it's what technology does.

As for them stating "we follow the best practice guidelines as laid down by our governing body, the British Parking Authority," they clearly do not if this is still the (lack of) signage at the entrance:

Mickstercf

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82107572#Comment_82107572

I've already requested that the Village Hall (Wyn Williams) cancels the ticket and they have refused.

Mickstercf

So should I just ignore it then? POPLA sounds like the wrong thing to do?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82107883#Comment_82107883

So up the ante by sending your evidence to the CMA like I said! Read the news about the CMA's Open Letter in July. You'll see.