Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • tarajonesdixon
    • By tarajonesdixon 13th Mar 18, 10:38 AM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    tarajonesdixon
    POPLA Appeal rejected - I had a ticket - what now?
    • #1
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:38 AM
    POPLA Appeal rejected - I had a ticket - what now? 13th Mar 18 at 10:38 AM
    Hi
    Just before Christmas I parked in a car park and my partner input the incorrect registration number into the ticket machine (the registration was incorrect by two letters and it is clear the similarity). When he spoke to the parking attendant the attendant said that particular machine had been playing up, phoned the office and then validated the ticket by writing our correct reg on the back. The attendant said this would be fine. I have been through the appeals process and POPLA have rejected our appeal. I submitted a copy of the ticket to them and explained. I am furious and feel it unreasonable for us to pay £100 fine when I had a ticket. What should I do now?


    Below is the judgement with personal information removed:

    Operator Information and Evidence
    Submitted 13/02/2018
    We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course
    Verification Code
    XXXX188221
    Operator Name
    Smart Parking
    Operator Case Summary
    On the 09/12/2017 the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX was captured by the cameras at XXXXXXX entering and exiting the car park. The car park in question is an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera system and Pay by Plate monitored car park. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created and sent out to the registered keeper. Smart Parking Limited would like to make the assessor aware that XXXX stated I as the driver in her appeal to Smart Parking Limited. In the Appellants appeal to POPLA the Appellant states that their partner bought a ticket, he input the registration number incorrectly, he went to the car park representative who told him the machine had been 'playing up'. The Appellant states that the car park representative phoned the office, using his mobile phone, in both their and their partner's presence, the advice from the car park representative, following the telephone call, was that all was ok and the ticket would be valid. The Appellant states that he advised they write the correct number on the back of the ticket so he would remember, they went on their way and returned within the allocated time given by our ticket. The Appellant states that under data protection they would request the following to support our claim, camera records of their car entering and leaving the car park, records of any car with the 'incorrect registration number' detailed on the ticket leaving the car park at the time stated on the ticket, phone records of the company representative around the time the ticket was printed. The Appellant states that they complied with the signage in the car park and did everything in our power to ensure that their ticket was valid, the representative of the company, following their contacting him about the error, assured us that the ticket would be honoured and was valid. The Appellant states that they believe the PCN to be unacceptable and unreasonable. Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that this Parking Charge Notice was issued for insufficient paid time. The contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an underpayment for the vehicle registration mark. As there was no payment made for vehicle registration mark “XXXXX”, we can confirm the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued for insufficient paid time. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration mark and for the duration of their stay when using this car park. Smart Parking Limited cannot comment on any undocumented conversations between the Appellant and the parking attendant. We would like to clarify that having checked our systems and the evidence provided, we can confirm that the Appellant had purchased their ticket for “XXXXXX” and not the full and correct vehicle registration “XXXXX”, and as the vehicle remained on site for a total duration of 181 minutes, the parking charge notice has been correctly issued. We would like to clarify that the payment machines do not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not, which is why it is important that motorists enter the full and correct VRM so the payment can be assigned to the correct vehicle. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they are purchasing the ticket for the full and correct vehicle registration. As the signage clearly displays on site, “Motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine.” Therefore, a valid ticket needed to be purchased for the full correct vehicle registration covering the full duration of their stay on site. As the motorist remained in the car park for 181 minutes the Parking charge has been correctly issued. Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify it is clearly stated on the instructions on the machine “1. Enter your car registration number using the alpha numeric keyboard. 2. Check tariffs and insert correct money. 3. Press the green button for your ticket”. Therefore, it was the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they entered their full and correct vehicle registration mark and check before authorising the payment. We would also like to clarify that the driver could have phoned the number located on the signage around the car park to make Smart Parking Limited aware of their visit to site. As the driver failed to do this and remained on site for 181 minutes, the driver incurred the parking charge correctly. Furthermore, Smart Parking Limited clearly display the reasons in which a parking charge notice can be issued, stating “Parking tariff applies 24 hours a day, Monday- Sunday” and “Motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine.” Therefore, as the Appellant failed to purchase a valid ticket and remained on site for 181 minutes, the parking charge was issued correctly. In regards to the payment machines not working on the date of contravention, please refer to the below evidence of our payment system where it clearly shows that 3 machines were working and printing tickets successfully on the day. Had the Appellant read the terms and conditions accordingly on the date of contravention they would have been aware that they were required to purchase a ticket against their full correct vehicle registration from the payment machine on site. Had no machines been working on the day, other motorists would not have been able to make payments, to which we can confirm payments were made successfully by other motorist throughout the day. We can confirm there have been no reports of the payment machines being faulty on the day in question. We can further confirm our attendants promptly report any issues experienced on any given day, on the same day. The site in question is ANPR operated, every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. It is important that the Appellant purchases their time on site for their full and correct vehicle registration so this can be matched up with the images taken by the ANPR cameras. As the Appellant failed to do this and remained on site for 181 minutes, the parking charge has been issued correctly. Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that it is up to the motorist to take into consideration their time on site. Sufficient time is taken in to consideration for drivers to enter the car park, read the terms and conditions, and decide whether to purchase a ticket or leave the car park. The terms and conditions of the site clearly state “By parking or remaining in this car park you agree to the terms of parking contract (if you don’t agree to them then please leave within 10 minutes of entry). Had the Appellant acknowledged the signage in the car park they would have been aware of the terms and conditions of the site. The signage on site clearly states “Parking tariff applies 24 hours Monday –Sunday” and “failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100.00”. Therefore, as the driver failed to purchase a valid ticket against the full correct vehicle registration and remained on site for 181 minutes, the driver incurred the parking charge correctly. With regard to the amount of the charge, a pre-estimate of loss is no longer a requirement by the BPA as of October 2014. As per the BPA guidelines (October 2015) the amount must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. The signage around the car park clearly advises that any motorists parked in breach of the advertised terms and conditions may incur a PCN. This has always been clearly distinguished by Smart Parking Ltd as a PCN and has never been called or disguised as anything else. The charge takes into account the commercial costs incurred in pursuit of a motorist who has breached the advertised Terms and Conditions. Please also be aware that on the 4th November 2015 The Supreme court dismissed Mr Beavis’s appeal by a majority of six to one, and declared that the charge appealed does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Furthermore, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices. Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment; supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf


    Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Ashlea Forshaw
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to purchase sufficient parking time for her stay at the site.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that her partner bought a ticket. She states that he input the registration number incorrectly and went to the car park representative who told him the machine had been 'playing up'. The appellant states that the car park representative phoned the office, using his mobile phone, and was advised that all was okay and the ticket would be valid. The appellant states that under data protection, she would request the following to support her claim, camera records of her car entering and leaving the car park; records of any car with the 'incorrect registration number' detailed on the ticket leaving the car park at the time stated on the ticket; phone records of the company representative around the time the ticket was printed. The appellant states that she complied with the signage in the car park and believes the parking charge to be unacceptable and unreasonable. The appellant has provided evidence of the parking ticket she purchased.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states, “Parking Tariffs Apply… up to 3 hours £2.70”. Additionally, it states, “Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of £100.00”. The car park is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras have captured the vehicle entering the site at 12:56 and exiting at 15:58, totalling a stay of three hours and one minute. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to purchase sufficient parking time for her stay at the site. The appellant has said in her grounds for appeal that her partner bought a ticket. She states that he input the registration number incorrectly and went to the car park representative who told him the machine had been 'playing up'. The appellant states that the car park representative phoned the office, using his mobile phone, and was advised that all was okay and the ticket would be valid. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, when it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed at the site, along with a site map. Having assessed this, I am satisfied that there are numerous terms and conditions displayed throughout the site and therefore, the appellant was given the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The requirement of the site is to pay for your full duration of stay. The appellant has parked on site for three hours and one minute. Therefore, she was expected to make a payment of £2.70 which would have permitted her to park for up to three hours. The operator has provided a copy of its transaction reports, showing that a payment had not been made in connection with the appellant’s vehicle registration, XXXXX, that day. I note that the appellant has provided evidence of the parking ticket that she purchased at the site. The ticket shows the registration number, XXXXX. However, this is not the appellant’s vehicle registration number and so, this ticket was not valid for parking. I understand that the appellant has said that she spoke to the representative who confirmed that the ticket would be valid. However, there has been no evidence of this presented to POPLA. If the appellant was told by the representative that her ticket would be valid and okay to use, this is an issue that she will need to raise to the operator directly as this is a third party issue. POPLA can only assess the factual evidence presented to us. Although I can see that the appellant has paid for a ticket, this ticket has been purchased under the wrong vehicle registration number. The appellant has also said that under data protection, she would request the following to support her claim, camera records of her car entering and leaving the car park; records of any car with the 'incorrect registration number' detailed on the ticket leaving the car park at the time stated on the ticket; phone records of the company representative around the time the ticket was printed. POPLA cannot request this information from the operator. This is a dispute between herself and the parking operator. The appellant has also said that she complied with the signage in the car park and believes the parking charge to be unacceptable and unreasonable. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess the terms and conditions of the site and to determine if the appellant did indeed comply with these terms. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to purchase a valid parking ticket at the site. Therefore, she has breached the terms of the car park and so, I can only conclude that this PCN has been issued correctly. As such, I must refuse this appeal.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Mar 18, 10:46 AM
    • 7,143 Posts
    • 6,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:46 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:46 AM
    Do you really think anyone is going to read that?

    Help others to help you - paragraphs.
    .
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    • 8,476 Posts
    • 8,791 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    Really, you just need to sit it out to see if the PPC (not debt collectors) issues an LBC and strarts an action against you.

    So use this waiting period to read-up on the advice in the Newbies Sticky so you are ready to defend yourself robustly if they try - and it is by no means a given that they will.

    You could also complain most strongly to the landowner/store/business concerned and add your voice to MP complaints, which may see something done about these creatures.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    What should I do now?
    Ignore them, unless they start a small claim. It's only Smart Parking! No next step.

    Such a waste of time for you.

    We win EVERY POPLA appeal v Smart Parking and so would you if you'd come here earlier.

    You should search the forum for 'POPLA lost' to read about all the other people sitting tight because they mucked up, or sadly lost after a sterling effort, a POPLA appeal.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 13th Mar 18, 12:40 PM
    • 3,180 Posts
    • 4,207 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 12:40 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 12:40 PM
    The chances of going to court are pretty low http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Smart_Parking.html
    This space for hire.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Mar 18, 12:46 PM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 18, 12:46 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 18, 12:46 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • tarajonesdixon
    • By tarajonesdixon 13th Mar 18, 9:29 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tarajonesdixon
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:29 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:29 PM
    Thank you for the responses so far. I'll check out the places suggested and sit tight.

    Just for information: I know how to use paragraphs - I just copied and pasted from POPLA, they obviously don't!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    • 7,143 Posts
    • 6,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    I know how to use paragraphs...
    Originally posted by tarajonesdixon
    That's good to hear.
    There was nothing stopping you inserting breaks yourself.

    As I said: Help others to help you.
    .
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

405Posts Today

4,874Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin