Code of Practice regarding "major keying error" (actually no entry) - BPA

[scumbags]

I have wangled a demand from Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) down from £100 to £20 - the vehicle in question was registered by a hotel to one of their guests who had booked, and paid, for accommodation on the basis that guest parking was free (not that the car was parked for the 15 minutes claimed anyway).

 

CEL claim "this situation is considered a major keying error" under paragraph 17.4 though all four examples of 'Major Keying Errors' there include "entered", which in this case nothing was. As far as I am concerned if a principal grants permission then whatever the principal's agent says that conflicts is between the two of them and no liability for a guest who has already paid for services including free parking without any condition.

 

I'm interested in any example from POPLA where not entering anything was considered "a major keying error" but mainly whether, at the £20 'reduced payment' stage "If you are not satisfied with our decision, you may appeal to the independent appeals service via www.popla.co.uk …" counts as predatory or misleading tactics, since in 9.5 of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice: "You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges." given that POPLA state (in an FAQ) "If the operator has offered the reduced payment and you choose to appeal anyway, we will refuse the appeal and the operator will expect you to pay the full parking charge amount."? (my emboldening)

 

 

[First post here, appreciate the answers I've seen.]

[honeybee13]

Hello, welcome to CAG.

 

Please let us have the information requested in the forum sticky and we'll advise you.

 

 

Best, HB

 

[brassnecked]

Looks like there was nothing to pay, but fleecers will want something for nothing.

[FTMDave]

We'd disagree with the way you are approaching this.

 

The only person who can force you to pay this money is a judge after you've lost a court case.  There have been plenty of cases where PPCs have sued motorists over wrong regs - and they have always lost.  The matter is "de minimis" AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities".

 

So really, who cares what CEL or POPLA say?  The law is on your side.  Simply don't pay the money.

 

As belt & braces, get onto the hotel (the organ grinder) and demand they call CEL off.  Be nice at the start.  If they fob you off, stop being nice and inform them they'll end up as a Third Party to the action if CEL sue you and will have to explain before a judge why they let these vermin loose outside their hotel to fleece genuine guests of £100.

[lookinforinfo]

The government has approved a new contract for motorists in private car parks which will become law in the near future.

 

The government is proposing that the New Appeals Charter will reduce parking charges to between £0 and £20 for the issues below:

• Significant Evidence of mitigation or genuine, legitimate reason - fine cancelled
• Non-evidenced mitigation – if accepted, fine reduced to between £0 and £20 dependent upon the circumstances
• Evidenced vehicle breakdown – fine cancelled for motorist and recovery vehicle
• Failure to display permit/Blue Badge/pay and display ticket (copy then supplied) – fine reduced to between £0 and £20.
• Keying error at pay and display machine – Minor (one letter wrong, removed or swapped or numbers and letters in the wrong order bur still recognisable) – fine cancelled
• Keying error at pay and display machine – Major (motorist enters their partner’s registration, multiple keying errors or only partial number plate entered) – fine reduced to between £0 and £20

So well done for cutting them back to £20 a sure indication I think that they know they are on a sticky wicket. Can't you find any evidence anywhere that the hotel can offer free parking?  I would be claiming as you are doing that this is not a keying error at all. More like a genuine legitimate reason. 

Perhaps if you could answer the questionnaire there might be some error that they have done and so not complying with PoFA which could be an extra flaw that would make them realise that it would be best to drop the case altogether.

 

[honeybee13]

I don't know where you got that information from, LFI, but it's talking about 'fines'?

[brassnecked]

Unless the muppets drafting it can't tell the difference between a criminal Fine, and a Civil Invoice, or are confused.

[lookinforinfo]

Well it came from a government document.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-private-car-parking-firms-will-eliminate-unfair-fines

 

[honeybee13]

Thank you for the link, LFI.

 

How depressing though, HMG doesn't understand about private parking.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

All of that is already in our sticky.

 

Dx