Motorist hit with large fine after issue updating her number plate
A consumer expert has explained how people caught out by a parking app issue should invoke the ‘£20 rule’ if they’re hit with a big fine. Writing on Sky Money, Consumer disputes expert Scott Dixon explained people may fall foul of failing to update their number plate in the app when they get a new car.
However, even though the person may be hit with a big fine, that doesn’t mean they have to pay it in full. He was answering a question from viewer Rachel who asked: ”I used a car parking app but due to tech issues I hadn’t realised it didn’t save my new vehicle reg details. I paid for parking but under my other car reg and received an email saying parking had been paid, but then received a £60 fine. What are my rights?”
Mr Dixon explained that she must appeal because an honest mistake is covered in their code of practice. He said: “First of all, you haven’t been fined. You have simply been issued a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract for parking on private land.
“The good news is that your appeal ought to be upheld. Parking operators must comply with the self-authored Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which requires them to deal fairly with keying errors (though they often don’t).”
He said ‘keying errors’ fall into two categories – minor and major errors. Mr Dixon explained: “A minor keying error would be inputting a zero instead of the letter “O”. The code says these fines should be cancelled if there is evidence you’ve paid the parking fee.
“A major keying error would be inputting the wrong registration number, as in your case. This is covered on page 49 of the code. Paragraph F3 states that a fine should be reduced to £20 for 14 days, subject to evidence, where:
- The driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering
- The driver or a passenger in the vehicle suffers the onset of illness or is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment or as a result of childcare arrangements.”
He said the person needs to appeal, attach proof of payment and explain the app failed to save the updated registration. He advised reminding them that payment was made for the correct time and location and it was a genuine keying error.
He said: “Reiterate that there has been no financial loss, the charge is disproportionate and you request their invoice be cancelled in line with the code of practice. If they reject your first-stage appeal, which is likely, ask for a POPLA code (if they are British Parking Association members) so you can escalate it to the second stage.”
If the operator is an International Parking Community member instead, escalate it to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), he said. Mr Dixon added: “You can safely ignore any letters demanding £170 from firms that have no powers whatsoever to enforce alleged debts owed – although a ‘letter before claim’ would need a response as it’s a precursor to court action.
“In a nutshell, your case is cast iron and reinforced by the parking sector’s own code of practice. You should be given the opportunity to pay £20 to cover their admin fees. Make sure you get any confirmation that it’s been cancelled in writing, so you have proof if it is pursued at a later date by debt collectors.”
Last month the British Parking Association (BPA), which represents parking operators, warned about the “unintended and avoidable consequences” of a new Government planned code of practice for the sector in Britain. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation document on the proposals stated it is considering banning the addition of debt recovery fees to parking tickets.
These fees – currently capped at £70 – are charged when parking operators use debt recovery agencies to attempt to collect money for unpaid tickets. The consultation also sought views on the cap on parking tickets, which is currently £100 with a 40% discount if paid within 14 days.
The BPA claimed banning debt recovery fees would result in car park operators taking more cases to court as that would be their “only option left” to pursue drivers for tickets that have not been paid. It also expressed concern that an “insufficient” maximum limit on parking tickets would create a “parking free for all” as it would reduce the deterrent for drivers ignoring parking rules.
BPA chief policy and engagement officer Alison Tooze said: “We fully support and welcome the Government’s code of practice. “However, it is our responsibility to warn against unintended and avoidable problems.
“The Government code framework has good intentions. However, we face an operational reality where we could see ‘Carmageddon’ in towns and cities and the already struggling court system being completely overwhelmed.
“We absolutely do not want this to happen. The code is being developed with the goal of protecting decent drivers, vulnerable road users and communities, yet there is a real danger that it could have the opposite effect and bring unintentional chaos.
“We have seen high-profile examples of this across the country including in Bournemouth and Aberystwyth where they were completely gridlocked by unfair motorist behaviour.
“Nobody wants to see this on a bigger scale and these examples illustrate what does happen in reality when drivers are not concerned about the consequences of breaking the rules.”
The organisation’s head of policy, Simon Williams, said: “We don’t support the use of debt recovery companies by the private parking industry and we hope to see it tackled in the Government code of practice when it comes into force.
“A £100 parking charge notice is bad enough but if this isn’t paid in 28 days it automatically gets increased by £70 when a debt recovery letter lands on the doormat. This seems disproportionate and could scare people into paying rather than appealing any unfair fines.”
