Well it does have a bearing if you win at POPLA.
DRA = Debt Recovery Agent or debt collector.
Going through the appeals process is worthwhile in some instances with POPLA. However, not engaging in the appeals process will have no bearing on any claim.
Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales. In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".
Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved. Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.
Have you got a POPLA code? If so, don't engage with Premier any further and draft up a POPLA appeal.
To be honest, it is getting wearisome going through the futile motions of time wasting appeals. The best way to get this seen off is to tell them to stop faffing about and either cancel or go straight to a county court claim.
They should not pass your details to any third party DRA otherwise they become liable for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018.
What appeal did the keeper submit?
PP's response is clear that they inferred that the keeper was the driver. If this cat is out of the bag then PoFA is redundant. Also, they claim that the driver admitted to entering the 'incorrect vehicle registration'
On this occasion, as you have admitted you paid for the incorrect vehicle registration, we were unable to allocate your payment.
It all depends on how aggrieved your friend feels about being scammed. If your friend is sure they entered the full VRM and wants to fight this, then they should. If they feel that paying £20 to the scammers is worth not having to contest and fight it, then so be it.
The NtK does not mention anything about an incorrect VRM. It simply states that the whole period of parking was not paid for. There is evidence to show that it was.
It may or may not be upheld at POPLA. However, should it ever proceed all the way to a county court claim, It is highly likely that a judge would see that the defendant can show that they did pay for the whole period.
What do the signs with the terms say? Can we see some pictures of them?
...There is also CRA 2015 issues with this too.
1) Is there a way to pay £20 and still contest this?No - if payment is made, the matter is essentially closed.
2) What are the chances of winning at POPLA?Hard to predict. Challenging this will involve a certain element of rolling the dice. There are a few possible reasons as to why only a partial VRM was registered, but the most likely ones that spring to mind are:
Upon closer review of the NtK I see that it does not contain an "invitation" (nor any synonym of the word) for the keeper to pay the charge. PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states that the notice must contain an invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. If Premier Park want the ability to be able to transfer the liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper, they must fully comply with the requirements of PoFA. Partial or even substantial compliance is not enough.
Absolutely not! You always pursue Plan A first.
Use the wording I gave you for the appeal. It is 99% likely to be rejected no matter what you put. However, you will have a record of steps taken should this ever progress all the way to a court claim.
The car park is not owned by Premier Park. They are contracted by whoever owns the car park or their managing agents. Whoever contracted Premier Park is jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents. They can tell their agent, Premier Park to cancel the PCN.Found this which may help - https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gb0457s200121 (https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gb0457s200121)
Plan A is always find out who owns/manages the land and get them to order their agent cancel it. It is by far the least difficult way to get a PCN cancelled.
Did the keeper ever find out who the landowner or their managing agents were and request that they get their agent to cancel the PCN?
...If you are unable to understand what those flaws are, I am more than happy to identify them to the court should you be inclined to take this matter before the only truly independent arbiter, a judge...
They also say I have to include VRN, full name, serviceable address, etc - is this necessary (they already have all this on the notice) or perhaps harmful as it confirms things?If it's all information already in their possession* there can be little harm caused in confirming it.
Is the 'this has been paid so there's no loss, so it's de minimis 'angle worth mentioning in the initial response to the PCN, or is it something to bring up at the POPLA stage?You can put whatever you want in the initial appeal, it will almost certainly be rejected. No money in it for them if they accept appeals.
I note that despite me entering my full registration twice into your machine
which involves the same ClaimantThe claimant here is different, is it not?
What arrangements are there for entry of the VRM ?
Is EX18 on the ticket the start of the VRM that was entered.
Is the VRM on the PCN correct (possible misread).
Quite likely, in terms of reason for issues, there is a mismatch between the entry on the payment machine and the camera picture. Either through user error or machine error.
A keying error should see a reduction to £20 (I am not saying you should avail of that, merely that it is an option).
There are likely other defences to the validity of the charge which others will mention.