Free Traffic Legal Advice

Evening all.

As registered owner i received a PCN to surprise after parking was paid when driver visited walk in centre. Turns out upon receiving the PNC driver had only paid for an hour by mistake using the app paybyphone for a car park owned by Parking Eye.

Pnc was appealed on grounds that payment had not only been attempted but had been paid, however genuine mistake or app glitch had meant only 1 hour was paid for not 4 as required. The appeal was made on the basis that the driver had not tried to evade paying, as evidenced by attempting to pay and evidence of full payments on all previous visits. Naturally was declined by parking eye. Popla appeal made, was declined. Driver claimed that they they had obviously tried to pay but a mistake was made and this was not known until the PNC was received.

Popla assessor determined that driver could have paid after the fact, but popla does not acknowledge that would be impossible if driver did not realise mistake until PNC and parking eye did not accept those circumstances.

I appreciate that this mistake is drivers own issue to verify payment, but if driver has not cared to pay at all then no payment would have been made at all. Why would a driver seek to pay for 1 hour only knowing they had been in longer than that it would lead to a PCN. There is no logic in that.There would be no point in having paid for an hour at all.

Further, the PCN  state that driver paid using a service not accepted by parking eye or paid for the wrong car park, this is accepted by POPLA as a error by parking eye.

Now received a letter stating county Court application will be made if £90 not paid.

Can provide full POPLA response and initial PCN notice if required.

Two main questions

Is parking eye error in PNC enough for it to be thrown out?

Should I consider letting this go to county Court? My argument is this was a genuine mistake which can be evidenced via previous full payments and the attempt to pay at all (my logic of why would someone chose to just pay for an hour).

Cheers

I understand, its more that they have not considered that driver tried to pay, did pay, but accidentally didn't pay the full amount or the app faulted the time. Logic dictates that someone would not pay for an hour when they know they owe four hours and would knowingly get a fine.

Here was popla response, whereby they state driver could have started a new parking session. Obviously they could, if they had realised the fault at the time. Its illogical to think someone would pay for an hour and not 4 on purpose, there is no sense in that.

Unsuccessful


Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase enough parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they made their payment using paybyphone but did not purchase enough parking time. They advise that they have previously used the same car park and did pay for the whole period of time which they were parked. They believe that they should be allowed to pay for their additional parking time. They advise that in the operator’s response to their appeal it has advised that they either did not pay at all or paid using the wrong service. In their comments the appellant advises that there was no facility to purchase the correct amount of parking once they had made a payment. The appellant has provided a copy of an email, a copy of a paper receipt, two screen shots of a receipt and a screen shot from the app they used.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs advise that drivers must pay for their parking using paybyphone or a parking charge of £70 will be issued. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice as the driver did not purchase enough parking time. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle was parked for three hours and 32 minutes. The operator has also provided a list showing that the driver purchased on hour of parking. Based on this evidence the operator considers that a valid contract was formed. I will now consider if the appellants grounds of appeal impact upon this. The appellant advises that they made their payment using paybyphone but did not purchase enough parking time. The operator’s evidence confirms that the driver needed to purchase the 4 hour parking tariff but only paid for one hour of parking. They advise that they have previously used the same car park and did pay for the whole period of time which they were parked. This appeal can only consider if this PCN was issued correctly or not. While I acknowledge the appellants evidence regarding previous payments other visits to the site have no relevance to the outcome of this appeal. They believe that they should be allowed to pay for their additional parking time. The driver could have paid for additional parking by starting a new parking session for the correct length of time. The driver could have know how long they had paid for as this is stated on the copies of the receipts they have provided to POPLA. They advise that in the operator’s response to their appeal it has advised that they either did not pay at all or paid using the wrong service. I acknowledge the errors in this rejection letter and note that the copy the appellant has provided matches the one contained in the operator’s case file but they do not invalidate the PCN. Further to this the operator offered to discount the amount of the PCN to £20 which the appellant has declined by appealing to POPLA. I note that the appellant did this despite knowing that they had not purchased enough parking to cover their stay. In their comments the appellant advises that there was no facility to purchase the correct amount of parking once they had made a payment. I have addressed these points above. The evidence shows that the driver did not purchase enough parking to cover their stay and as such has contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice as the terms and conditions of the contract have been breached. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

I have since reviver a letter stating they have added on £20 to the fine for debt recovery costs, but there hasn't been any debt recovery required, can I challenge that at least if I'm not proceeding with a county Court defense?

Is there any scope to hope for out of court settlement?

Thanks for your help