Hello there,

Just today received refusal for my appeal to POPLA.

To make it short, I parked at hospital car park when my wife was in labour, ran to the maternity unit. I was given the "permit" that allowed me to stay for 7 days, paying minimal charge every day. There I found I have no change even to pay that minimal charge. Running around hospital, I couldn't find any either, but I felt I was lucky to find that I can pay with my mobile for parking via RingGo, so I assumed that I can pay same minimal charge via mobile, and be happy. How wrong was I...

I found a PCN on my windscreen, and in my consequent mail correspondence with CP Plus (parking operator) they refused to consider RingGo equivalent of pay and display ticket.

The permit I've got from hospital indeed states that it should be displayed together with pay and display ticket, however RingGo rules displayed on parking site claim that RingGo users are not required to display ticket.

Also, I found that hospital has two different forms of the permit, and one clearly states that RingGo is not a valid payment. Mine doesn't have it, and I found that they have another form only during POPLA appeal as I was copied when they provided the evidence.

I attach both my permit and the one CP Plus tried to provide as evidence that RingGo is not an option (none of those contain my details, btw).

So now, first thing I want to ask the people here - who is right and who is wrong? Am I right assuming that unless it was specified on the permit, and providing that signs on the parking site say that RingGo payment is equivalent of pay and display ticket, I rightfully replaced one way of payment with another?

And if so - what do I do now? I'm starting to lose hope for common sense. Just (from moral point of view) can't understand people fining me for shortage of time when my wife was giving birth...

OK removed POPLA ruling PDF (have no idea how to edit it), but here's decision text:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 4685352 arising out of the

presence at Whipps Cross Hospital, on 14 May 2014, of a vehicle with

registration mark [X] for parking without displaying a valid pay and

display ticket.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site

without displaying a valid pay and display ticket and this was a breach of the

terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

It is the Appellant’s case that they were given a permit to park for seven days

and had to pay for a parking ticket costing £2.50 each day and display this

along with the permit in their vehicle. The Appellant states that on the day in

question, they did not have change so decided to display their permit and

make payment for parking by RingGo.

The Appellant was in possession of a concessionary permit which allowed

them to park for a reduced fee of £2.50 per day. The Appellant was required

to display on their dashboard the permit as well as the ticket from the pay

and display machine to show that they had paid £2.50. The permit stated on

it “Display clearly on dashboard with a paid car parking ticket” and there is

no mention of RingGo. I find that the Appellant breached the terms and

conditions of parking by not complying with the terms and conditions as

stated on their permit. Although the Appellant had paid by RingGo, this

payment was not valid for use in conjunction with the permit they had

displayed. The Appellant ought to have paid for parking using the ticket

machine and displayed the ticket along with their permit on the dashboard

of their vehicle and on this occasion they did not do so.

Thanks in advance.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]52877[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]52878[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]52880[/ATTACH]

You need to remove anything that can ID you.

Attachments unapproved ...please remove any Identifiable data.

Regards

Andy

Hi dpisklov

I have had to unapprove your attachments, could you ensure that you remove any identifying personal information especially from the PDF this is so that you remain anonymous before reposting them

so you paid the prescribed fee? Then if the parking company do want to take the matter further you can counterclaim for a breach of contract for the exact same amount. They cant have it both ways. The argument in your favour is that you paid the required fee and that byhaving confusing and contrary conditions for use no further contractual conditions could be considered and therefore bnot accepted. This means thwere has been no breach of contract and in any case, no loss has been caused to the parking company by your actions.

The breach of contract you can claim is that you paid to park and they denied you this facility.

Did the hospital have an arrangement in place for your wife when she went into labour? If so, then you were invited onto the land owner's land (NHS). They stand zero chance of recovering any money as they have to demonstrate the losses suffered by the NHS. It will probably get thrown out of court with even a minimal defence.

Did the hospital have an arrangement in place for your wife when she went into labour? If so, then you were invited onto the land owner's land (NHS). They stand zero chance of recovering any money as they have to demonstrate the losses suffered by the NHS. It will probably get thrown out of court with even a minimal defence.

Well, hospital has agreement with car park operator, as you can see on the voucher they gave, I'm not sure if this voucher can be considered an arrangement between my wife and hospital? It is official that any patient attending maternity unit shall receive this voucher.

@ericsbrother

Yes, I paid even a bit more - RingGo has their commission.

However the thing is - I payed the minimal amount, which is parking for 1 hour, but with voucher, paying minimal amount allows me to stay 24 hours. They agree that I had right to stay there for 1 hour, but they claim I couldn't use the voucher with RingGo payment. That's the bit I'm not sure how to defend against. I couldn't get any details of agreement between hospital and CP Plus either...

it is for them to prove their arguments and not for you to prove they are wrong. Let them make their case. them having an agreement does not placea burden upon yourself, it merely gives them certain rights to form contrcats. Again, that does not mean those contracts are fully valid as stated.

So you suggest to wait for them to take the issue to the court?

If I lose in the court, how much will it cost me? And will it cause any convictions on me?

So you suggest to wait for them to take the issue to the court?

If I lose in the court, how much will it cost me? And will it cause any convictions on me?

IF, and that's a very big if, you lose at court, they'll add the court costs and probably a solicitors fee, which I think amounts to an extra £85 on top of whatever they're claiming you owe them now.

However, if you can prove that a) you had this voucher, and b) the voucher doesn't say anywhere on it that you can't use RingGo, then I think they stand about as much chance of winning in court as Elvis has of being elected the next pope!

It's entirely a CIVIL matter, so there will be no convictions no matter what the outcome.

IF, and that's a very big if, you lose at court, they'll add the court costs and probably a solicitors fee, which I think amounts to an extra £85 on top of whatever they're claiming you owe them now.

 

However, if you can prove that a) you had this voucher, and b) the voucher doesn't say anywhere on it that you can't use RingGo, then I think they stand about as much chance of winning in court as Elvis has of being elected the next pope!

 

It's entirely a CIVIL matter, so there will be no convictions no matter what the outcome.

OK, thanks a lot for the advice!

Is there any lawyer here on the forum who (in case I need to) will be able to represent me (East London area)? I haven't been in UK long enough so I'm a bit worried that I simply won't be able to communicate efficiently using "jury English"...

IF they do want to go down that road you should be counterclaimeing for breach of contract for exactly the same amount. To follow protocols they have to send you notice of intended action and that has to contain details of who is suing you, why and for how much prior to filing court papers. IF you do get such a letter you tell them that you deny the debt in its entirety and that you ntend to counterclaim for the breach as valued by them. It will certainly make then think tiwce and the if they file a claim they wont be able to misuse the court's time as a debt collection tool (like some parking companies) and not pay the allocation fee when you respond to defend. They play a dirty game so being strident at the beginning makes them scurry off back under their stone.

IF they do want to go down that road you should be counterclaimeing for breach of contract for exactly the same amount. To follow protocols they have to send you notice of intended action and that has to contain details of who is suing you, why and for how much prior to filing court papers. IF you do get such a letter you tell them that you deny the debt in its entirety and that you ntend to counterclaim for the breach as valued by them. It will certainly make then think tiwce and the if they file a claim they wont be able to misuse the court's time as a debt collection tool (like some parking companies) and not pay the allocation fee when you respond to defend. They play a dirty game so being strident at the beginning makes them scurry off back under their stone.

So for now do I just sit there waiting for these papers? Or shall I let them know that I don't intend to pay anything no matter what POPLA ruled out?

PS I also want to try luck and appeal to POPLA's Lead Adjudicator claiming that the assessor of my case ignored some of the facts I provided (like presence of 2 types of permits, and the fact I payed the fee I was required to pay). Does anyone think that it's worth doing?

I don't suppose it would hurt to contact POPLA again, but don't say "ignored" you might rub them up the wrong way. Say something along the lines of 'may have misread' or 'may have missed'. "Ignored" seems to imply that they're not doing their job properly, whereas to miss something is human error. Of course, you'll mean ignored, but it's semantics

As for anything else, yes, just sit back and see what they do next. They have to send you a letter before action, so it's not like they can get it through court without you knowing anything about it.

Their rules say that I can appeal to Lead Adjudicator for alleged misconduct, but not if I simply disagree with decision, so I have to imply that the Assessor was not doing the job properly... Not sure if I can suggest that it was missed or misread?

Thanks a lot for your help, I will post here if/when I receive that letter from those parking people.

Hello people,

Quick update: now I received couple of letters from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus) demanding payment and ignored those (I guess that was the right thing to do?).

Today they (DRP) have sent me a letter with "Notice of intended court action" saying that if I don't pay they will pass me "to creditor's solicitor with a recommendation to commence court action". I understand this is NOT yet letter before action? Or is it?

Shall I do anything to better prepare to possible court action and what documents do I need to prepare for it in advance if any?

Thanks

D

Hello there. This still sounds like empty threats to me, they're recommending court action to someone who may not want to initiatiate it.

Are you able to scan up the letter minus identifying info please? pdf is best.

HB

Do nothing at present

for DR+ this is such a common phrase they write it on their christmas cards.

you can ignore them completely

OK thanks all, I'll just sit there and wait for real court action (if they will decide to pursue me in the court).

@honeybee13 I don't have scanner in hand, but I can photo it. Though apart from what I typed earlier it only has plenty of other threatening stuff, like "if you don't pay it will damage your credit rating" and similar BS.

They cannot touch your credit file unless the debt has gone to court and a judge decides that it is valid. WHich, if you use the correct defence, will NEVER happen. You need to report the DCA for misleading information.

Here's photo of that paper they have sent me.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54357[/ATTACH]

Doesn't seem it displays correctly so I will post a link to the image... (Can't add link here as I need to have 10 posts lol)

So the link to the image above is:

w w w. dropbox .com s lsmrlzcj14wuvnx 2014-11-17%2016.49.29.jpg?dl=0

Please add / in between instead of spaces (it didn't allow me to post links)

Standard DR+ letter. Ignore.

Dare I say Zenith letter next.... ignore again.