BPPM ANPR PCN - failed to pay - part reg only - even though I paid??!!

[brassnecked 1,548]

Or rather the vehicle captured on ANPR didn't pay, but they can't sue a vehicle, and there is no consequential loss to claim on you paid, a vehicle was parked.

[paulwlton 1,236]

I’ve emailed their data protection officer requiring them to rectify the data they hold on me. I’ve sent the parking ticket for proof of payment .

 

Will they now continue to pursue the charge for failure to pay for parking or for the technical registration mishap breach??

 

 

Edited July 23 by paulwlton

[brassnecked 1,548]

 Would be inadvisable for them to do so but they are stupid/greedy enough to try it on, we are dealing with ex cowboy clampers  who changed their hi viz  ericsbrother and others will also have an opinion on that also.

[lookinforinfo 2,125]

On 22/07/2019 at 12:41, paulwlton said:

You're correct, they've stated I failed to pay for parking. 

My Point exactly.

The first time they obtained your data from the DVLA was a breach of GDPR. Any future corresondence from them just compounds their error.

[paulwlton 1,236]

10 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

My Point exactly.

The first time they obtained your data from the DVLA was a breach of GDPR. Any future corresondence from them just compounds their error.

 

Im not sure it would be a breach as they had the right to contact DVLA for any breach including failure to input full registration. They however failed to use the correct reason for breach on the NTK letter.

[brassnecked 1,548]

Doesn't matter how they breached, they breached, so are liable.

[lookinforinfo 2,125]

6 hours ago, paulwlton said:

 

Im not sure it would be a breach as they had the right to contact DVLA for any breach including failure to input full registration. They however failed to use the correct reason for breach on the NTK letter.

But they contacted the DVLA because they claimed you had not paid. You have a ticket that says otherwise so they breached the GDPR because their records are inaccurate. So not fairly nor lawfully processed nor accurate. Article 1 and 4 breached

As you have already informed them of their error they may well be in breach of Articles 31 and 32 if they have failed to notify their Supervising Authority of their breach.

[paulwlton 1,236]

They’ve checked their system and cannot find any partial registration been entered, accordingly they’ve rejected my appeal. 

Edited July 24 by paulwlton

[paulwlton 1,236]

28 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

But they contacted the DVLA because they claimed you had not paid. You have a ticket that says otherwise so they breached the GDPR because their records are inaccurate. So not fairly nor lawfully processed nor accurate. Article 1 and 4 breached

As you have already informed them of their error they may well be in breach of Articles 31 and 32 if they have failed to notify their Supervising Authority of their breach.

 

I see where your coming from.

[paulwlton 1,236]

Appeal dismissed.

 

 

"The Appellant challenges the parking charge on the basis that the driver paid for parking however it would appear from the comments made and evidence provided that they did not enter the registration of the vehicle they were driving correctly when making payment. I am satisfied that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the terms of parking are properly complied with. Signs are located throughout the site making clear the terms of parking at the location. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require the driver to pay for parking using their full and correct registration and by not ensuring that their registration was entered correctly when making payment they agree to pay the charge.

The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

As the guidance to this appeal explains I am bound by the law of contract and cannot consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances, only legal challenges. It would appear that the payment systems were working correctly at all material times and simply that an error was made by the Appellant in not entering their registration details correctly when making payment. I am satisfied that no payment was made for the vehicle registeredxxx on the day in question. I appreciate that mistakes can be made, however, as the guidance to this appeal explains I have no discretion. The terms of parking have been breached by the Appellant as they did not ensure that their correct registration was entered at the time payment was made and accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

[brassnecked 1,548]

As expected then?  They have suffered no loss so a defended claim should see them off all being well if they go that far.

[paulwlton 1,236]

26 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

As expected then?  They have suffered no loss so a defended claim should see them off all being well if they go that far.

 

 Why is there no breach of contract.?? One of the terms was to enter the correct reg

 Are these adjudicators receiving back handers????

Edited August 4 by paulwlton

[dx100uk 8,351]

Run by the same peop lel

thought you'd already read all that

 

 

[paulwlton 1,236]

4 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

Run by the same peop lel

thought you'd already read all that

 

 

 

They quote Parking eye v Beavis. Is the case compatible??             

[dx100uk 8,351]

never is

 

[brassnecked 1,548]

They quote that case as a frightener, it stands on it's own facts, and is not applicable to much of what they claim it is.  Now the Law does not concern itself with trifles, a wrong digit in an index no is a trifle, you paid, so no loss springs from the error, if you look at the alleged Breach, it becomes an unlawful penalty rather than an estimate of loss or damages read up on the wrong reg threads you will get the idea.

 

Same as they use the non applicable tired chestnuts to try to ground keeper Liability outside POFA,  Elliott V Loake, a criminal case so not applicable, there is a duty to name driver in say a speeding case, no such duty in a civil case, and CPS V AJH Films, which is employer/employee relationship so again not applicable.  If either of or both those cases ina claimants WS, you know they are worried as their case has no foundation.

[paulwlton 1,236]

"They quote that case as a frightener" .....errrmm, I thought they were an "independent" appeals service??

ill read up on the threads as you suggest.

[ericsbrother 3,367]

Paul, you have been through all iof this before and still you want to argue the case for the parking co when you know they are wrong.

You are of course entitled to just pay up and they will them shut up be we know they are in the wrong and so do you so make your mind up, do you want help or not?

 

read the parking pranksters blogs on "knagaroo Courts"  if you want to know about the IAS, you really should have done this already and stored  the information away somewhere in the back of your mind so you can use it the next time they come and try and rook you..

 

Also you were advised on the likely outcome of an appeal and thus the suggestion that you save yourself for more important things yet you seem surprised the leopard didnt change its spots.

 

Focus on what you can do rather than what is the "right thing" they should ahve done, they are in it to make money and arent interested in anything you have to say that slows that down.

 

However, if you read their signs carefully and likewise the NTK you may find that the assessors assertion of a claim by the parking co being for a contractual sum is wrong so it would be for a breach of contract and if BEAVIS didnt apply they would be sunk.

 

However, if they have made the wrong demand then it doesn't create a liability and you can get the Gladstones wont be going through all of BPPM's stuff to make sure they have got it right before they demand money from you and punish their errant member if  they got it wrong.

 

That is your job but save it until it is a mistake they cannot correct …. wait for them to go as far as a proper LBA

[paulwlton 1,236]

It just amazes me how these crooks get people to pay up for not complying with a contractual term.

 

So, if they’re not claiming for loss. What if the term said if you fail to input the correct digits of your number plate you will be charged £10.000. 

 

 

[brassnecked 1,548]

It would be struck down as an unfair term, as there could not be any loss to justify a £10K charge.  You really must get a grip and stop putting hurdles in your own way.

[paulwlton 1,236]

27 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

It would be struck down as an unfair term, as there could not be any loss to justify a £10K charge.  You really must get a grip and stop putting hurdles in your own way.

Exactly, same as the £100 charge would be struck down as an unfair term as there’s no loss.

 

They are arguing that the charge is payable because I’ve agreed to it....aren’t they??!!

 

Theres no hurdles, just trying to understand their argument.

 

 

[ericsbrother 3,367]

but since you havent shown us the signage we dont know if they are claiming a contractual sum or for brach of contract. they are not the same even though they treat them as such.

 

Understanding  the argument of  someone who would wrap a crowbar around your head if the law hadnt changed is not the right way to proceed. They are ex-clampers and a ot of them are just thugs nd will do and say anything to get money out of you.

 

The reason the POFA came in was because the parking co 's were fighting against having clamping taken away from them so they wanted something else instead to get peopel to pay up. The Broadmoor wing of the Tory party supported this "free market" moneymaking at the time because they thought it good to see people profiting from their land. little did they realise that money would haemmorhage from the NHS, colleges etc over this and end up in the pockets of people with very dubious pasts who had no interest in the land whatsoever.

 

 

[paulwlton 1,236]

..

 

terms.pdf

[lookinforinfo 2,125]

That only .shows one parking sign which is not the greatest help. The most important one [and that may be the one you have shown ]is the sign at the entrance.Quite often there are several signs dotted around the car park some of which may contradict others.

I notice that on the payment meter it doesn't state that there is a charge for not entering the car reg. nor any other terms and conditions either. Also have you confirrmed with the Council that they have permission to erect the signs. Town and Country Planning [Advertisements] Regulations.

[paulwlton 1,236]

 

Yes its the sign next to the ticket machine closest to the entrance.