Annoying parking ticket despite having paid
Discussion
Wife parked in a train station car park, used a machine to buy a parking ticket on her credit card. The machine was one of those where you had to enter the number plate of the car. Left ticket in windscreen, up to London for the day, back at end of day, picks up ticket and goes home. This is the only time she has used the station car park so has a strong recollection of the above events.
Today, four weeks later, have received a parking charge notice with the offence of "failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher". At this point, so long after the event, we have no evidence of the fact that the parking was paid for, other than a credit card transaction for an amount to that service. At this point I can't prove that the ticket for this particular parking was paid for and displayed. I also suspect that they can't prove that it wasn't - they say they have photographic evidence but I suspect this will just be a picture of the car in a bay, not a picture showing the top of the fascia with no ticket.
What's frustrating is that the notice has come through long after the evidence of paying has gone - the ticket was binned at the end of the day. We have a credit card transaction for an amount of money but of course that isn't going to wash on its own. They may have evidence that a ticket was purchased for the car in their machine - but no doubt they are under no obligation to use that against themselves even if the machine remembers the number plates entered.
A notice left on the car on the day would have given us a chance to contest this. Maybe the ticket slipped off the dash, maybe it didn't (though my wife says she remembers picking it up from the top of the fascia). 4 weeks after the event means no chance to prove otherwise.
I'm not saying that the ticketing person gave us a parking charge despite seeing a perfectly valid ticket - but there's nothing stopping them doing that and given the elapsed time the chance of a successful appeal is very slim - and if we were to win the appeal they just cancel the charge. Nothing to lose for them, especially in this day of targets and revenue sharing. So in future we'll have to go through the faff of registering with the phone services to pay for parking so that there's a concrete record, or taking our own photo of the ticket in place on the day.
Edited to add: apparently this is far from an isolated incident in this car park - there's supposed to be a Facebook group of local people asserting similar situations.
Today, four weeks later, have received a parking charge notice with the offence of "failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher". At this point, so long after the event, we have no evidence of the fact that the parking was paid for, other than a credit card transaction for an amount to that service. At this point I can't prove that the ticket for this particular parking was paid for and displayed. I also suspect that they can't prove that it wasn't - they say they have photographic evidence but I suspect this will just be a picture of the car in a bay, not a picture showing the top of the fascia with no ticket.
What's frustrating is that the notice has come through long after the evidence of paying has gone - the ticket was binned at the end of the day. We have a credit card transaction for an amount of money but of course that isn't going to wash on its own. They may have evidence that a ticket was purchased for the car in their machine - but no doubt they are under no obligation to use that against themselves even if the machine remembers the number plates entered.
A notice left on the car on the day would have given us a chance to contest this. Maybe the ticket slipped off the dash, maybe it didn't (though my wife says she remembers picking it up from the top of the fascia). 4 weeks after the event means no chance to prove otherwise.
I'm not saying that the ticketing person gave us a parking charge despite seeing a perfectly valid ticket - but there's nothing stopping them doing that and given the elapsed time the chance of a successful appeal is very slim - and if we were to win the appeal they just cancel the charge. Nothing to lose for them, especially in this day of targets and revenue sharing. So in future we'll have to go through the faff of registering with the phone services to pay for parking so that there's a concrete record, or taking our own photo of the ticket in place on the day.
Edited to add: apparently this is far from an isolated incident in this car park - there's supposed to be a Facebook group of local people asserting similar situations.
Edited by PhilboSE on Friday 2nd November 10:34
Edited by PhilboSE on Friday 2nd November 10:39
Credit card details available to me just show the date:
09 Oct Indigo Park Services L Surrey GBR £5.75
(The actual date of the parking was 8th October so no doubt the fact that they posted the transaction after this date will be used to contest this).
I don't know if any further transaction details are stored with the credit card company - such as the time or the details of the specific device. Of course their machine probably has additional proof - including the number plate - but they're hardly going to take that into consideration are they!
Ultimately I suspect they'll fall back onto a "failure to display a ticket" as their proof that we didn't obtain one, despite any supporting circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
09 Oct Indigo Park Services L Surrey GBR £5.75
(The actual date of the parking was 8th October so no doubt the fact that they posted the transaction after this date will be used to contest this).
I don't know if any further transaction details are stored with the credit card company - such as the time or the details of the specific device. Of course their machine probably has additional proof - including the number plate - but they're hardly going to take that into consideration are they!
Ultimately I suspect they'll fall back onto a "failure to display a ticket" as their proof that we didn't obtain one, despite any supporting circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
Wife is hunting for the ticket. No sign of it yet and not likely to find.
Have accessed photos. Are pictures of her going in and out of the car park. Obviously fully automated so no parking attendant so immaterial whether the ticket was on display or not.
Further details on credit card transaction show correct date and that it was my wife's card that did the transaction.
She asserts that she entered the number plate correctly, but obviously we can't prove that. Ironically, only the car park machine could evidence that either way.
So:
Their proof is evidence of us entering and leaving car park. No dispute that this happened.
Our proof is a transaction done on the correct date at the correct time for the correct person.
4 weeks after the event, our absolute proof is long gone (the ticket). Their absolute proof is in the car park machine, which will show whether the car number plate was entered correctly or not. But of course they won't be sharing that information with us.
Have accessed photos. Are pictures of her going in and out of the car park. Obviously fully automated so no parking attendant so immaterial whether the ticket was on display or not.
Further details on credit card transaction show correct date and that it was my wife's card that did the transaction.
She asserts that she entered the number plate correctly, but obviously we can't prove that. Ironically, only the car park machine could evidence that either way.
So:
Their proof is evidence of us entering and leaving car park. No dispute that this happened.
Our proof is a transaction done on the correct date at the correct time for the correct person.
4 weeks after the event, our absolute proof is long gone (the ticket). Their absolute proof is in the car park machine, which will show whether the car number plate was entered correctly or not. But of course they won't be sharing that information with us.
Which car park did it occur in'?
Chances are if it is an Indigo, it will be a railway operator car park that they are managing, and what you have received is a penalty under Railway bye-law 14.
There is no appeal service for these, however they can only be enforced by magistrates, and that only happened on two occasions last year.
Let me know where it happened and I can expand further on this, and let you know what to expect.
(Indigo have effectively white-listed every vehicle registered to my company recently - I've been a bit of a thorn in their side in the last years over Bye-law 14 tickets)
Indigo can not take you to court. PCN Admin Centre who will chase you for a bit, they can't take you to court. ZZPS who are the debt collection arm of PCN Admin centre can't take you to court, and eventually it will go to QDR solicitors who also can't take you to court.
Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) can instigate the process that would result in a magistrates appearance, and this is happens in the very rarest and exceptional cases.
Chances are if it is an Indigo, it will be a railway operator car park that they are managing, and what you have received is a penalty under Railway bye-law 14.
There is no appeal service for these, however they can only be enforced by magistrates, and that only happened on two occasions last year.
Let me know where it happened and I can expand further on this, and let you know what to expect.
(Indigo have effectively white-listed every vehicle registered to my company recently - I've been a bit of a thorn in their side in the last years over Bye-law 14 tickets)
Indigo can not take you to court. PCN Admin Centre who will chase you for a bit, they can't take you to court. ZZPS who are the debt collection arm of PCN Admin centre can't take you to court, and eventually it will go to QDR solicitors who also can't take you to court.
Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) can instigate the process that would result in a magistrates appearance, and this is happens in the very rarest and exceptional cases.
Edited by S11Steve on Friday 2nd November 13:01
I could be wrong, but I think the key here is the offence. It is not a failure to display. Therefore, I’m sure that no ticket was purchased for the exact registration number. At these car parks, I don’t think the ticket needs to be displayed, it is a receipt. As I say, I could be wrong but that’s how these normally work. Sorry op, it still might be worth appealing or challenging but I’ve seen these penalties upheld with a single digit error.
wazztie16 said:
If they can only show the car entering and leaving, claim that your wife didn't park?
Then, they would have to release the number plate details (on the machine).
IANAL
I doubt they'd have to do anything - trying to convince a judge that she didn't park and simply drove around the car park for <x> hours might be difficult.Then, they would have to release the number plate details (on the machine).
IANAL
Rompy said:
I could be wrong, but I think the key here is the offence. It is not a failure to display. Therefore, I’m sure that no ticket was purchased for the exact registration number. At these car parks, I don’t think the ticket needs to be displayed, it is a receipt. As I say, I could be wrong but that’s how these normally work. Sorry op, it still might be worth appealing or challenging but I’ve seen these penalties upheld with a single digit error.
That's what I thought. I'd expect this all to be automated - so the ANPR for the entry / exit camera is being used to compare the registrations entered in the ticket machine. The most likely cause is human error when entering the registration. Of course the wife thinks she entered the correct registration - if she didn't, she would have corrected it - but it's an easy mistake to make.My local station car park has a similar system, except that you can also buy a ticked from station the ticket office. When you do this, they don't take the reg number, so there is nothing to cross reference. I therefore wonder whether the reg is actually recorded by the ticket machines or just printed on the ticket
davek_964 said:
That's what I thought. I'd expect this all to be automated - so the ANPR for the entry / exit camera is being used to compare the registrations entered in the ticket machine. The most likely cause is human error when entering the registration. Of course the wife thinks she entered the correct registration - if she didn't, she would have corrected it - but it's an easy mistake to make.
A car park near me displays a photo of your vehicle once you have entered the reg and you tap on that to confirm vehicle id is correct. I guess that in the unlikely event of two similar registrations, or it only captured a partial registration, or your input is not exact that more than one photo can be displayed and you select the one you want to pay for. A far more equitable system.speedking31 said:
car park near me displays a photo of your vehicle once you have entered the reg and you tap on that to confirm vehicle id is correct. I guess that in the unlikely event of two similar registrations, or it only captured a partial registration, or your input is not exact that more than one photo can be displayed and you select the one you want to pay for. A far more equitable system.
Equitable it may be, but profitable for the parking company it is not. There is method to their madness you know!S11Steve said:
Which car park did it occur in'?
Chances are if it is an Indigo, it will be a railway operator car park that they are managing, and what you have received is a penalty under Railway bye-law 14.
There is no appeal service for these, however they can only be enforced by magistrates, and that only happened on two occasions last year.
Let me know where it happened and I can expand further on this, and let you know what to expect.
(Indigo have effectively white-listed every vehicle registered to my company recently - I've been a bit of a thorn in their side in the last years over Bye-law 14 tickets)
Indigo can not take you to court. PCN Admin Centre who will chase you for a bit, they can't take you to court. ZZPS who are the debt collection arm of PCN Admin centre can't take you to court, and eventually it will go to QDR solicitors who also can't take you to court.
Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) can instigate the process that would result in a magistrates appearance, and this is happens in the very rarest and exceptional cases.
Ashtead (Surrey) station car park. Yes, persuing under Byelaw 14.Chances are if it is an Indigo, it will be a railway operator car park that they are managing, and what you have received is a penalty under Railway bye-law 14.
There is no appeal service for these, however they can only be enforced by magistrates, and that only happened on two occasions last year.
Let me know where it happened and I can expand further on this, and let you know what to expect.
(Indigo have effectively white-listed every vehicle registered to my company recently - I've been a bit of a thorn in their side in the last years over Bye-law 14 tickets)
Indigo can not take you to court. PCN Admin Centre who will chase you for a bit, they can't take you to court. ZZPS who are the debt collection arm of PCN Admin centre can't take you to court, and eventually it will go to QDR solicitors who also can't take you to court.
Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) can instigate the process that would result in a magistrates appearance, and this is happens in the very rarest and exceptional cases.
Edited by S11Steve on Friday 2nd November 13:01
Interestingly, they seem to be offering the option of an appeal on the reverse of the form.
As this is a fully automated system, they must store the records of the number plates entered into their machines as they obviously cross reference those against the ANPR. So, I am considering making a Subject Access Request for all the details they have against the credit card used to make the payment. Then, either:
a) it will show the correct number plate entered and I'm home dry, or:
b) it will show one mis-entered, but close enough to our car to support the fact that we did pay to park, albeit entered the plate wrong (which isn't itself an offence).
Or they'll refuse to provide details. Currently, the only evidence they are offering is photos of entering and leaving. But tied in with a transaction 5 minutes after the entry time, at their machine in their car park, should be enough you would think to prove we paid. The issue is the effort it would be to get to that point.
davek_964 said:
Rompy said:
I could be wrong, but I think the key here is the offence. It is not a failure to display. Therefore, I’m sure that no ticket was purchased for the exact registration number. At these car parks, I don’t think the ticket needs to be displayed, it is a receipt. As I say, I could be wrong but that’s how these normally work. Sorry op, it still might be worth appealing or challenging but I’ve seen these penalties upheld with a single digit error.
That's what I thought. I'd expect this all to be automated - so the ANPR for the entry / exit camera is being used to compare the registrations entered in the ticket machine. The most likely cause is human error when entering the registration. Of course the wife thinks she entered the correct registration - if she didn't, she would have corrected it - but it's an easy mistake to make.Unfortunately the onus is now on us to prove that she did pay, and given the elapsed time that is very hard.
Ok - standard Indigo penalty notice - it even says the penalty can only be enforced by their client (the Train company) through the magistrates and the case brought within 6 months. This will not happen.
The option is yours, depending on how much time and effort you want to put in to it.
a) You can submit an appeal, on whatever ground you want, such as the proof of payment from your bank statement - it will be rejected, they always are. You can then ask to dispute it via an ADR such as POPLA, but this is the official POPLA take on bye-law appeals - https://popla.co.uk/byelaws
This may result in a cancellation for you, or it may result in it being held in limbo for months and months. Either way, a win for you..
b) Write back and suggest that they stick it up their arse.
For reasons that won't apply to you, I have resorted to doing this with them and it has resulted in not receiving any PCNs from them for the last 7 or 8 weeks, normally we would get about 15-20 a week from them.
c) Ignore it completely. You will then get a few letters from ZZPS, then a couple from QDR solictors. By which time it will have timed out on the 6 month rule.
For absolute clarity, the train operating companies have taken few people to magistrates over unpaid tickets in recent years, but they have been for persistent offenders, the piss-takers who park every day for weeks without paying.
The reason I have chosen option b is that for the last year, Indigo have refused to trasfer liability from us as keeper through to the driver of the vehicle. They make all sorts of threats by mixing various parts of a breach of contract with a breach of the bye-law. I've wasted far too much time on them, and despite many offers to work with them sensibly, they insist that we pay the penalty direct to them.
I've met with Indigo and ZZPS to discuss a working solution and they have admitted to me in person that they know they can't enforce on these through civil means, but enough people and fleets pay up without question to make it worthwhile for them to pursue them in this manner.
And that is just one of the reasons I despise the industry as an orchestrated scam, and why I am happy to help people avoid lining their pockets further.
The option is yours, depending on how much time and effort you want to put in to it.
a) You can submit an appeal, on whatever ground you want, such as the proof of payment from your bank statement - it will be rejected, they always are. You can then ask to dispute it via an ADR such as POPLA, but this is the official POPLA take on bye-law appeals - https://popla.co.uk/byelaws
This may result in a cancellation for you, or it may result in it being held in limbo for months and months. Either way, a win for you..
b) Write back and suggest that they stick it up their arse.
For reasons that won't apply to you, I have resorted to doing this with them and it has resulted in not receiving any PCNs from them for the last 7 or 8 weeks, normally we would get about 15-20 a week from them.
c) Ignore it completely. You will then get a few letters from ZZPS, then a couple from QDR solictors. By which time it will have timed out on the 6 month rule.
For absolute clarity, the train operating companies have taken few people to magistrates over unpaid tickets in recent years, but they have been for persistent offenders, the piss-takers who park every day for weeks without paying.
The reason I have chosen option b is that for the last year, Indigo have refused to trasfer liability from us as keeper through to the driver of the vehicle. They make all sorts of threats by mixing various parts of a breach of contract with a breach of the bye-law. I've wasted far too much time on them, and despite many offers to work with them sensibly, they insist that we pay the penalty direct to them.
I've met with Indigo and ZZPS to discuss a working solution and they have admitted to me in person that they know they can't enforce on these through civil means, but enough people and fleets pay up without question to make it worthwhile for them to pursue them in this manner.
And that is just one of the reasons I despise the industry as an orchestrated scam, and why I am happy to help people avoid lining their pockets further.
PhilboSE said:
It's entirely possible she put in the wrong number plate, of course. Although she is a very detail-oriented person and says she left plenty of time to park and therefore wasn't in any sort of a rush. However, the offence is failure to pay to park, not "failure to enter your number plate correctly".
Unfortunately the onus is now on us to prove that she did pay, and given the elapsed time that is very hard.
But you have rather good proof. You have evidence of a payment, maybe some evidence that your wife parked in the station car park (such as train journey payment/ticket, diary, people met with etc) and testimony. On the balance of probabilities, I think you'd win. And as S11steve says, it won't get to court anyway.Unfortunately the onus is now on us to prove that she did pay, and given the elapsed time that is very hard.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff