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
    • Kunle2004ng
    • By Kunle2004ng 12th Jan 19, 5:19 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Kunle2004ng
    Popla Appeal based on failure of notification system refused - CEL PCN
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:19 PM
    Popla Appeal based on failure of notification system refused - CEL PCN 12th Jan 19 at 5:19 PM
    Hi there,

    I have scoured through different threads but could not find something similar to mine.

    A bit of background:
    In October 2018, I received a CEL PCN for 'payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage' for paying for an initial 4 hour parking period and paying for additional 4 hours after 57 minutes elapsed. In all all of my previous parking experience, the Paybyphone system sends a notification 15 minutes before the end of the parking period, but it did not send a notification this time. I also noted that the notification always came when the parking period paid for is below 4 hours restricted parking period, but it did not come this time when I paid for 4 hours parking.

    My initial appeal was rejected by CEL (just discovered that this is normal from the threads I have read). Unfortunately, I started appealing before discovering the guidance on this website and implied that I was the driver. In their rejection, they changed their PCN reason from "payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage" to "exceeding free stay...".

    I made a Popla appeal on the basis of the failure notification. I also stated that the charge is excessive, being in excess of the cost to landowner, noting that I have already paid for two parking sessions and missed out on the 57 minutes because of lack of the usual notification. Finally, I referred to mitigating circumstances arising from a negative medical diagnosis I received on the day affecting my ability to judge the expiration of the parking period.

    Popla refused the appeal based on their inability to consider mitigating circumstances and that despite the change of reason by CEL, the PCN was issued correctly.

    CEL has now sent a letter requesting payment.

    Is there anything else I can do to fight this injustice? I paid for two parking sessions and the system allowed it. Whereas, other phone systems will not allow you to pay for new sessions if your allowance has been used. Their system also conveniently failed to send a notification as it (and other systems) normally do.

    Thanks


    PS: For more details, I have included the Popla assessment below:

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name XXXX XXXXXX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a payment was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions.

    Assessor summary of your case
    Within their appeal the appellant explains that the original parking charge stated, “payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage” but on appealing the appellant says that the reason changed to “exceeding the free stay…”. As there is a difference in the PCN reasoning the appellant says the charge is illegal. Ordinarily, the appellant explains that the paybyphone system sends a notification 15 minutes prior to the end of the parking period but failed to on this day. They state that when they estimated that their parking session had ended, they paid for an additional four hours. On the day the appellant says that they received notification from their GP to confirm that they had a XXXXXXXXXX that they have been attempting to clarify for a while. They state that they mentioned a medical condition to the operator, but this was not considered by the operator. In their appeal the appellant says that the operator did not consider their medical condition or the information that they put in their appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Within their appeal to POPLA the appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention; as such, I will be considering the matter of driver liability. The decision reached within this assessment will be based on the information supplied by both parties at the time the appeal was submitted. My role, as an assessor, is to establish if a contract was formed with the parking operator and if that contract was breached by the motorist. In order to reach this decision, I will consider the terms and conditions outlined in the signage at the site and its compliance in accordance with relevant reference material. A review of the operator’s evidence will be required to establish if a contravention occurred suggesting that the contract offered at the site was breached. This site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The cameras record the duration of a motorists stay from the point of entry to the point of exit. To establish a breach the vehicle registration details are matched against the data produced by the ANPR system; any discrepancies will result in a PCN being issued. In this case I can see that the ANPR cameras have captured vehicle registration, XXXXXXX. The entry time was recorded as XX:XX with an exit time recorded as XX:XX. The total stay for this visit was eight hours and 57 minutes.

    In this case and based on the evidence supplied by the parking operator, I can see that the operator issued a PCN as a payment was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions. It is important to note that the signage in place in a private car park sets out the terms and conditions of the contract offered. The signage displayed allows the motorist to decide if they wish to accept the offer of contract or not. By parking, the motorist has implied their acceptance of the contract offered. Looking at the evidence of the signage supplied by the parking operator I can see that it states, "PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE……MAXIMUM STAY 4 HOURS, NO RETURN WITHIN 1 HOUR. PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF ARRIVAL… If you breach these terms and conditions you will be charged £100” and “£1.00 – 20 MINUTES, “2.50 PER HOUR 8AM-6.30PM”. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made to the motorist. I will turn my attention to the appellant to assess if their grounds of appeal and any supporting evidence is sufficient to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator. Within their appeal the appellant explains that the original parking charge stated, “payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage” but on appealing the appellant says that the reason changed to “exceeding the free stay…”. As there is a difference in the PCN reasoning the appellant says the charge is illegal. Ordinarily, the appellant explains that the paybyphone system sends a notification 15 minutes prior to the end of the parking period but failed to on this day. They state that when they estimated that their parking session had ended, they paid for an additional four hours. On the day the appellant says that they received notification from their GP to confirm that they had a XXXXXXXXXX that they have been attempting to clarify for a while. They state that they mentioned a medical condition to the operator, but this was not considered by the operator. In their appeal the appellant says that the operator did not consider their medical condition or the information that they put in their appeal. There is a human side to parking appeals and, like in this instance; this can make the refusal of some appeals uncomfortable.

    However, while POPLA is not able to consider mitigating circumstances, we can refer the appeal back to the parking operator to reconsider the circumstances presented to us. In this case POPLA asked the operator to reconsider the case you submitted to POPLA. Upon further review, the operator did not choose to withdraw the charges following POPLAs request. Therefore, the operator requested that POPLA continue with the appeal. I note that the appellant is disputing the PCN issue reason. For clarity the PCN states that a payment was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions. This was explained within the operator’s rejection letter to the appellant. From my assessment I can see that the appellant paid for a £XX parking session for the duration of 4 hours, the ticket expired at XX:XX. Further, I can see that a second parking session was purchased at XX:XX expiring at XX:XX, paying for eight hours parking. However, the evidence shows that the vehicle remained for a period of eight hours 57 minutes resulting in the time paid for being exceeded. Therefore, I am satisfied that although the reason may have changed on the rejection letter it was still in line with the advertised terms and conditions at the site. I am satisfied that the appellant accepted the offer of contract and parked in contravention to the terms offered. It is my conclusion that the PCN was issued correctly as the signage at the site informs motorists that they must pay for their stay. It should be noted that the outcome reached within this appeal is not binding on the appellant; an alternative route for resolution outside of the POPLA process can be sought. As such, I must refuse this appeal.
Page 1
    • Parkingfines
    • By Parkingfines 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    • 117 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    Parkingfines
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    Nothing you can do at all. They have 6 years to issue a court claim. Come back if you get one.
    • Kunle2004ng
    • By Kunle2004ng 12th Jan 19, 5:23 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Kunle2004ng
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:23 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:23 PM
    Thanks. I will do just that.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 7:37 PM
    • 65,747 Posts
    • 78,276 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 7:37 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 7:37 PM
    while POPLA is not able to consider mitigating circumstances, we can refer the appeal back to the parking operator to reconsider the circumstances presented to us. In this case POPLA asked the operator to reconsider the case you submitted to POPLA. Upon further review, the operator did not choose to withdraw the charges following POPLAs request.
    Wow, so POPLA did all they could do, and referred the mitigating circs back to CEL...and CEL told them to do one.

    Horrible firm, IMHO.

    Beat them in court. Come back when you get a claim, and we will assist. I am not lying when I repeat that we see wins in court consistently 99% of the time.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 19, 8:20 PM
    • 10,135 Posts
    • 13,374 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:20 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:20 PM
    By POPLA doing that, most unusual, means there is merit in your case against CEL.

    CEL are just animals, not part of humanity

    This forum will help you zap them as usual

    When the new government CoP becomes law, CEL are on the bucket list
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

2,408Posts Today

8,063Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @paullewismoney: People who were students 1990-97 are being offered the chance to pay off half their unpaid student loan and the other h?

  • As normal I am signing off twitter for the weekend - to spend time with mini and Mrs MSE. Hope you have a wonderfu? https://t.co/FG3sRfkIgA

  • RT @LauraFrancis9: Top crew! We may film in the freeeeeeeezing cold every week, but this bunch make it fun. (And huge thanks as always to @?

  • Follow Martin