PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

ive edited and expanded on point 10 to show this could and should have been dismissed at the appeal stage

Thanks for your detailed response and for taking time to research these cases.

They never offered me at any stage a £10 settlement.

My local court is in North West Wales

I will look through the cases you suggest and add to the witness statement in addition to expanding on point 10.

Umkomaas wrote: »

The Cargius case was rooted in North West Wales - injured on Snowdon, late getting back to his car, ParkingEye tried to gouge his wallet - although I believe the case was heard in Wrexham (nearby?), so there may be some local knowledge among judges - if it gets that far.

Thank You for this. My case is being heard at ****** County Court. Wrexham is about an hours drive along the North Wales coast from here.
As you say IF it gets that far there will hopefully be some local knowledge among the judges of rouge PPC claims

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Count your blessings it's not being heard at Swansea. THE WORST JUDGES FOR PPC CASES.

Youve been warned SWANSEA!!

Ive reworked the ws to include the cases you pointed out, is the way I refer to other cases ok?
Think my exhibit references need tidying up, but that can be done at final draft.
Ive referred to Beavis to show how my case is distinguishable. Am I helping myself in quoting that case?


1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

4. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘POPLA’ (‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. I adduce, as evidence, Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. Exhibit A.

Exhibit B is Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, to which Henry Greensdale refers to in his report.

5. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case.

6. It is submitted that the main reason that the Claimant is ‘unable to take steps to enforce’ the charges they allege apply, is due to their own choice not to use the POFA Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper letters. Had they done so, then they might have had cause to pursue me as registered keeper (subject to other evidence, such as adequate notice from signage). In the absence of such notices, there is no cause of action.

7. The vehicle in question in this case entered *** ********* *** ***** car park at **:** on ****** *** 201*.

8. At **:** a parking ticket was purchased. Exhibit C

9. During payment at the ticket machine, an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error.

9.1 The Vehicle Registration Numbered entered in error was that of the 2nd family car. An easy mistake to make, a certainly not one that should take a year and half to defend.

10. All vehicles entering and leaving the car park have their Vehicle Registration Numbers captured by ANPR cameras, as the Notice to Keeper letter issued to me shows. Exhibit D

10.1 The vehicle, whose Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error, never entered the car park that day.

10.2 The claimant’s records, through use of these ANPR cameras, will prove this beyond any doubt. Yet they have chosen, unbelievably and somewhat suspiciously, not to do so.

10.3 Parking companies have the technology to refuse to accept incorrect number plates. Their ANPR systems know which plates are in the car park at any time. Charging people for entering the wrong number is therefore purely a money-making exercise and has nothing to do with car park management.

10.4 The Claimant will have had an entry on their system that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonable be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.

11. I wish to bring to attention of the court the case of Excel v Burgess. Stockport. 03/07/2017. Exhibits E and F

11.1 On discovering an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number had been entered at the ticket machine, the Claimant’s sister company, Excel, whose name is on the parking tickets issued at the car park in question in this case, reduced the parking charge to a ‘goodwill’ gesture of £10, after an appeal.

11.2 If the Claimant believed the true loss to be £10, why was I never offered, at any stage, the same settlement?

11.3 I wish to put on record I would have objected to this settlement as parking was paid for in full and the car exited the car park around an hour before the expiry of the paid for parking ticket. Exhibits C and D.

12. I put it to the court there is no commercial justification for Private Parking Companies issuing parking penalty charges for incorrect Vehicle Registration Number entry.

12.1 ParkingEye v Heggie. Sheffield. 13/12/2013. Ruled in favour of the defendant after he had entered his 2nd car’s Vehicle Registration Number in error. Exhibit G

12.2 In that case, the claimant was made aware of the circumstances only after court proceedings had commenced and argued they couldn’t halt proceedings.

12.3 In my case, I made the Claimant aware that the driver had paid in full for a ticket in the 21 days after the issue of their Parking Charge Notice, some 18 months ago.

12.4 Therefore, I put it to the court, that the charge imposed is unconscionable and is completely distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis 04/11/2015

13. Despite informing the Claimant I was not the driver and of the sequence of events in this witness statement, during an appeal process to the International Parking Community (IPC), and pleas to check the claimant’s records to confirm payment was made with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, it was to no avail.

14. Given the fact that the Claimant is an International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member, it is not surprising the appeal was outright rejected because it is reported in the public domain that the IPC attracted AOS membership away from the rival ATA, by allegedly promising an 80% 'appeal win rate' in favour of operators. I have since discovered the conflict of interests behind the Trade Body and the so-called 'IAS' was exposed by MPs in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, proposed legislation that has unanimous cross-party support in order to stamp out rogue 'tickets' such as this one.

15. The actions of the Claimant are predatory and opportunistic, which directly breaches the IPC Code of Practice, Part B 14.1. Exhibit H.

16. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my costs which will be submitted separately.

Thanks Le_Kirk

Im going to add something along the lines of

As I was I was not the driver of the car, i did not enter into any contract with the claimant. A contract needs to be formed before any of its terms and conditions are breached, which is the basis of the claimants claim against me. Subsequently, the Notice to Keeper issued to me is not compliant with POFA


Have I understood the POFA compliance part correctly?