Hi,
On the 9th March the driver of the vehicle (indicated in the NtK notice here:
https://imgur.com/a/OjsKHdw) parked at the SIP Car park, Spaniel Row , Nottingham.
Upon arrival the driver parked and then proceeded to pay at the ticket machine located at the car park entrance. The driver estimated the stay to be not longer than 2 hours and purchased a ticket in accordance with this expected duration (see here for prices:
https://imgur.com/a/DfzQXky). At the time of purchase, the machine indicated that no ticket would be provided. The driver used a contactless debit card to make payment and upon completing the transaction, the on-screen display of the payment device indicated that the payment had been approved. Approximately one hour later the driver returned and left the car park.
On the 16th March the registered keeper of the vehicle received a parking charge notice related to the stay of the vehicle on the aforementioned date. Upon subsequent consultation with the driver it became apparent that, in spite of on-screen indication to the contrary, the contactless payment met with a technical error as evidenced by the driver's bank statement (see here:
https://imgur.com/a/OYR1v4D) and thus payment for the stay was not taken.
Based upon the above evidence of technical payment error, the keeper of the vehicle believes that the parking charge notice was issued in error and would like to ask the advice of the forum on how best to proceed to challenge this.
Best Regards,
The Registered Keeper
Hi all,
As an aside, the registered keeper asked Deepseek R1 to provide a letter of appeal in line with the the private parking sector single code of practice. This is included below for reference and would be grateful for a review of the appropriateness/correctness of this:
https://imgur.com/a/twBsuPP
That letter says that you have a screenshot of the permit machine screen showing the transaction as "Approved".It also says you have a bank statement showing "no transaction" for the date???
You have only shown us a photo of the payment machine tariffs. Is the screenshot of the declined payment actually from a bank statement? Where is the screenshot of the "approved" payment from the payment machine?
You are referencing the BPA CoP which was superseded in October last year by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
Not sure exactly what you are expecting. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant so they can transfer ability from the unknown driver to you, the known keeper. However, PoFA compliance is not only with reference to the NtK. The signs at the location must adequately bring to the attention of the motorist the charge for breaching the terms and conditions. You can also use the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) for frustration of contract.
Hi,
Thanks for your help and review of this.
I have a screenshot of the driver's bank statement only (see here:
https://imgur.com/a/S8Nbbxk ); indicating the technical error. At the time of payment, the payment machine indicated that the payment was approved and thus there was no reason to capture a photo. Are you able to confirm that this is sufficient evidence to challenge the PCN?
Many Thanks,
The Registered Keeper
Any initial appeal to an unregulated private parking company will be rejected, no matter what you plead. The secondary appeals process will depend on which ATA the company belongs to. If they are BPA members, then you would be able to appeal to POPLA with a roughly 40:60 chance of success. If they are an IPC member, ten you chances of success with the IAS are around 4:96.
Either way, if the secondary appeal is unsuccessful, that decision is not binding on you and you can then ignore everything except if they issue a claim for the alleged debt. Even then, there is every likelihood that they will never let it get as far as a hearing and if they did, your chances of success are high. The most likely scenario is that if they let it get as far as a claim, is that the claim is struck out or discontinued.
You have to decide whether you are prepared to fight this all the way.
Hi,
Thanks for your support. I intend to fight this. I'd like to kindly request you review the appeal letter I have prepared (
https://imgur.com/a/y2mhc0C) before I populate the details and submit my appeal. It is revised to ensure accuracy of available evidence and to reference the latest PPSCoP (v1.1).
Kind Regards,
TRK
As I already mentioned, any initial appeal, no matter how clear you try to make it, is going to be rejected. So, with that in mind, whatever you send is going to bee a wasted effort.
As SIP are IPC members, their offer of a secondary appeal to the IAS will be about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. Personally, I wouldn't bother with an IAS appeal although others on here will disagree. The choice is yours.
Where this will ultimately be settled is if it is referred to the county court as a small claim. No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to the likes of SIP. Any claim, if they even try to take this that far, will either be struck out or discontinued. Even if you were to be one of the less than 1% that were ever to get as far as an actual hearing, you'd be likely to win anyway.
It's up to you how you want to proceed. But thigh the above in mind, you make your choice. The appeal you have shown is clear and follows logic. It's a pity that SIP and the IAS don't.
Hi,
Thanks for your quick reply. I guess my aim here is to make a clear and defensible appeal from the outset regardless of the anticipated futility of the appeal process. Should the case find it's way to court, I'd like to believe that evidence of adherence to correct and due process throughout weighs in my favour. Thanks again for taking the time to reply to mine and all of the other cases on this forum. Your help is invaluable! I shall keep the post updated with the state of progress of this case.
Many Thanks,
TRK
Hi,
An update on the progress of this situation: The parking operator SIP has sent a further demand for payment without any acknowledgement of the written appeal. An appeal letter was sent by recorded postal delivery within the allowable appeal time to the specified appeal address. I'd like to ask for a recommendation on a suitable next response. Should I send a further letter highlighting that an appeal letter was sent in the allotted time or simply ignore all further correspondence from SIP?
Kind Regards,
TrK
Stop wasting money by sending letters by recorded delivery. An absolutely useless service which, at best can only prove non-delivery. ALL correspondence must be by email which is also CC'd to yourself. It is instant and you also have proof of delivery.
If you insist on using snail mail, the you only need to send it by first class post with a free "Prof of Posting" certificate from any post office.
You don't seem to have gathered the fact that you are not dealing with some firm that has any customer service ethos. They are a bunch of ex-clampers operating on the very edge of lawfulness.
They re not going to accept any appeal you send (they haven't and they've ignored it) and appealing to the IAS will be an equally salutary experience if you want to even bother with them. You can try and make a forma complaint to the IPC but again, you will be fobbed off and considered a mug by them. But hey, fill your boots if you insist.
I have already explained that the only way this will end in success for you is after they make a claim.
Thanks for your quick reply. To be clear, my desire to follow the canonical appeal process is more to bolster the defensibility of any such claim that may arise rather than borne of any realistic hope of an admission of error. At this point it sounds like the sensible course of action will be to wait for the if and when of a claim letter landing on my doorstep and to remain indifferent to any/all interim correspondence from SIP. Also, thanks for the tip re: recorded delivery; I'll bare that in mind for the future.
Regards,
TRK
Hi,
I'd like to follow up this topic by saying that SIP final got back to TRK in May acknowledging receipt of the appeal letter and simultaneously indicating that the appeal was unsuccessful. In spite of this indication, TRK has had no further correspondence from SIP (since May) and is tentatively drawing the conclusion that the matter be now be closed.
Regards,
TRK
You may have to wait until after March 2031 to be sure that the matter is closed.
Agree x 1
View List