Ringo error with start time of parking - Won

[PennyDale]

Hi, I parked at the train station and paid for my parking via Ringgo as I always do, so I was very surprised to find a PCN stuck to my windscreen when I returned. I challenged it, but MET Parking have rejected this saying there was no valid session in place.

It turns out that although I did the RingGo transaction at 06:47, the receipt shows it starting at 6.47 PM.

The only proof I have of this is the email receipt that was sent through to me timed at 06:49.

The transaction history in myringgo.com shows the time paid as 06:47, but the start time as 18:47.

So as far as I'm concerned, this is not my mistake, and i shouldn't have to pay the charge.

Thanks

Penny

[wales01man]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

The transfer into their account or the taking of the money from you should show the earlier time

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

https://www.myringgo.co.uk/help/article/10

Can you do so at the location (in theory obviously as you seem to have done it in practice)

Do you have a popla code ?

M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Yes you can pay in advance at this location, they've changed the phone app now, previously you either selected 'pay for parking to start now' or 'pay in advance' and I always choose pay now. Even if I'd mistakenly selected pay in advance, you would need to select the start time.

The app now defaults to the time and date and you change it to the start time you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I have a popla code.

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Ok. Can you post up the notice and appeal (suitably sanitised )

I'll sort popla asap after this.

M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

PCN attached.

I appealed online and don't have a copy of the details.

I sent them the ring go VAT receipt, and i would have selected that I was the driver of the vehicle.

Penny

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

I'll sort a popla appeal out soon.

M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Thank you, very much appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.


1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.

2. MET parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.

3. MET parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

4. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.


1.The charges are penalties.

The charges are represented as parking without paying. The driver on the day paid, as usual, via ringo. Upon receipt of the penalty notice the driver checked their ringo account and noticed the ringo clock was in error as the time of purchase was 06.47 and the time the ticket purchased started 12 hours later. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"


£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for the fee paid. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense to fine people for something they already paid for and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs.

I require MET parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. MET parking cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

As there was no VAT it cannot have been for a service and must be a penalty.

2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi


MET parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that MET parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow MET to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between MET parking and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.



3. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"


4. ANPR ACCURACY

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.



M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Many thanks, I'll post an update, it looks like it might be some time as POPLA is moving so there is a handover period, and they aren't taking any new appeals online, you just register your intention to appeal for now.

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Many thanks, I'll post an update, it looks like it might be some time as POPLA is moving so there is a handover period, and they aren't taking any new appeals online, you just register your intention to appeal for now.

Yup.

M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Hi M1, I can now register my appeal, but the POPLA appeal form is split into separate boxes of 2000 characters, can you advise how I should fill this in? I have until 12th October to register my appeal.

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

I'm working on it. (well i will be once i finish work this week) I have an ever growing number to do. Going to rejig it to say the same but differently.

M1

[PennyDale]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

thank you

[mystery1]

Re: Ringo error with start time of parking

Instructions for uploading http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html
Your appeal (please check it, you may need to save as a pdf file too) pennydalepopla.rtf

cargius.pdf

M1