Free Traffic Legal Advice

I’m looking into this issue for a friend. I’ve read the FAQ and am unsure of the best way forward. They have already done something that is advised against in the FAQ on the Money Saving Expert forum so there might not be much I can do at this point.

Couple of key points:

• This took place in Scotland at the New Lanark Visitor Centre.
• They have already appealed to POPLA, who have rejected the appeal. This is advised against on the Money Saving Expert forum if the alleged offence took place in Scotland. Therefore, the template letters in the Money Saving Expert guide may not be appropriate?
  

They state that they tried to pay at the on site machine. The machine took card details, vehicle details, then paused and went back to the home screen. They assumed that this meant that payment has been taken.

New Lanark’s website acknowledges that card payments can be “unreliable”.

https://newlanark.org/your-visit/getting-to-new-lanark/

Best method of payment: We strongly recommend paying by cash at the on-site parking machine to avoid any issues.

Card and app payments (e.g., RingGo) may be unreliable on site due to limited mobile signal.

They mentioned this when appealing to the company monitoring the car park (Minster Baywatch). Minster Baywatch stated that other car park users were able to pay on the day, indicating that the machine was working.

Please find the attached image showing recorded payments for around the vehicles observed arrival time to the site showing that an on-site machine (denoted as flowbird) and available pay by phone method of RingGo were working and other visitors were able to pay and enter their registration without issue.

POPLA’s response:

The appellant has stated that the payment machine was faulty. They have explained that the machine accepted their vehicle registration number and bank card, and gave them the impression that it had processed their transaction. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided a copy of its transaction report, which demonstrates that a payment had not been made in connection with the appellant’s vehicle that day. The transaction report also demonstrates that motorists were able to make successful payments via the payment machine before, during and after the appellant’s stay. Should the appellant have made a successful transaction, I consider that they would have been issued with a receipt, and the payment would have been deducted from their bank. I understand that the appellant has commented on the number of transactions made, but as POPLA is an evidence-based service, we must base our decisions on the evidence put forward by both parties.

This doesn’t make sense to me as it proves that the machine was working during the day. It does not prove that the machine was working when they tried to make the payment.

I have uploaded the signage and the PCN notice here - https://ibb.co/album/pQZgQk

Thanks if anyone can give any advice.

As there's no keeper liability in Scotland presently, it could have been ignored. By appealing to POPLA the driver's identity has been confirmed (since only the driver can appeal in Scotland) and M-B may now take action against the driver. This is still unlikely, but there have been a couple of recent cases here where court action has been started in Scotland.  So you're left with paying it, or toughing out the debt collection letters and risking possible court action where you may have to pay more if you lose (noting that the sure fire defence has been negated).  Does the driver live in Scotland?

Thanks for the response.

That's what I thought would be the case, unfortunately.

Yes, the driver does live in Scotland.