Failed POPLA appeal - Premier Park, Exeter Road Car Park, Braunton, EX33 2JJ

[steveycrow]

Hi all,

So I received a ticket from Premier Park back in February. I thought it was unfair as I did pay the charge but put the digits for my car in the wrong order - an example, without giving my exact reg no out publicly is that my reg is for example AB66 ADE but I inputted AD66 ABE. It was stormy (the weekend of storm Clara) and I was trying to collect medicine for my son who had flu. Al these details were explained to Premier Park in the hope that I may be able to appeal to their human nature, but they rejected my appeal. I appealed to Popla and suggested that BPA Code of Conduct changes effective 6th January 2020, specifically section 17.4 which states a minor keying in error includes... "Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)" and furthermore that..."These are minor errors...where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal."

They have argued that it is a major keying in error and my appeal is unsuccessful. I just think this is taking advantage of the general public - I have paid the charge in testing circumstances in all good faith and feel like I am being unfairly punished on a technicality?

Any useful ideas or suggestions welcome?

Many thanks.

[ostell]

So what was the text of the POPLA appeal and POPLA's response? Parking company - Human Nature? They want the money.

[steveycrow]

So what was the text of the POPLA appeal and POPLA's response? Parking company - Human Nature? They want the money.

This was my appeal to Popla:
1. It is agreed that I had paid for parking as proven by my ticket photograph.

2. It is suggested I made a major keying error - I dispute this and in any event BPA states in s.17.4 of it's Code of Conduct that "In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant)." - I aver that it is proven that I paid for the parking event AND that I attempted to enter the VRM - as I have stated previously, I attempted to enter the vehicle registration and did pay for a ticket in good faith. Furthermore, I would aver that to deal with this "appropriately" as suggested by the BPA, would mean you should cancel the parking charge in it's entirety, especially given the stormy conditions and my sons illness all adding to a stressful situation as I have previously explained.

3. It is agreed as evidenced by the photo of my ticket that I had inputted the digits AB66ADE when the actual VRM is AD66 ABE. It is therefore agreed by both myself and the operator is it not that I have therefore inputted the correct digits but in the wrong order?

4. Notwithstanding, the operator seems conveniently mute on the BPA Code of Conduct changes effective 6th January 2020, specifically section 17.4 which states a minor keying in error includes...
"Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)"
and furthermore that...

"These are minor errors...where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal."

I aver that every digit was correct, albeit in the wrong order and given the numbers and last letter were correctly inputted, the number that I inputted in good faith but through a combination of prevailing conditions and illness, incorrectly, is still very much recognisable to the correct VRM. Indeed what I did was mistakenly input the "AB" and the "AD" of my VRM in the wrong places. The VRM I inputted is therefore still recognisable.


This was the appeal decision from Popla:
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that it was a very stormy day and they had stopped in the village to buy medicine for their son. They advise that they had entered the correct letters and digits of their vehicle registration but slightly in the wrong order. They state that they made an honest mistake and they had paid for parking. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant states that the operator has suggested that they made a major keying error which they dispute. They say that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 17. They state they entered all the correct digits and letters but in the wrong order which makes vehicle registration details recognisable. The appellant has provided evidence of their tickets.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking. The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention, I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Please pay for your stay”,” Please enter the full correct registration of your vehicle”,” If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:48 and exiting at 15:33 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence which shows that no payment had been made against the vehicle registration WP66 LWU on the day in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant advises that they had entered the correct letters and digits of their vehicle registration but slightly in the wrong order. They state that they made an honest mistake and they had paid for parking. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant states that the operator has suggested that they made a major keying error which they dispute. They say that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 17. They state they entered all the correct digits and letters but in the wrong order which makes vehicle registration details recognisable. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 17(B) of the BPA Code of Practice regarding major keying errors. This advises that if a motorist has entered more than one character incorrectly this is viewed as a major keying error. It goes on to say the following “It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.” The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that it has fully complied with Section 17 of the BPA Code of Practice regarding major keying errors. The appellant has been offered a £20 goodwill gesture which they have chosen to decline and have appealed through POPLA. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The motorists chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties , the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused