Car Parking, APCOA (in this case, Oriental Road, Woking) - a cautionary tale

[whole diary]

[grahame]

On 1st November, I parked in the APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) car park at Woking Station as Storm Ciaran developed, and for the first time found myself faced with electronic register and pay as the only way to pay - not even a machine with a contactless card panel.

I phoned in to the automated system and entered my details - registration, time I wanted to park for (system confirmed price back), credit card long number, expiry date and security code. I declined to pay extra for text reminders and receipts, and headed off to London for the 50th celebration event of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Imagine my shock at getting a letter a week later with a picture of me entering and leaving the car park (yes, that was me) and telling me I had not paid, and was required to pay a penalty charge.  Hindsight and subsequent evidence suggests that my phone connection cut out before I answered final questions covering the make and colour of the vehicle, and although the fee had been agree by me and details give, APCOA had not taken the money and considered me to be in breech.


On the grounds that I had every reason to believe I has paid, I questioned the fee with APCOA who pointed out that I had been parked there, that they had not received my money, and they upheld the penalty charge.  Most unsatisfactory; I had made every effort to pay and as a first time user of their system had no way of knowing that I had not done so.


The Car Parking industry has a trade body - POPLA - who will take appeals from motorists who feel that one of their members (APCOA in this case) has got it wrong, and as I believe that the APCOA system is out of order, I appealed - result back in the last few days.   Here is the judgement:

Decision:  Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case: The parking operator has issued the penalty notice (PN) for use of private car park without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case: The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They registered by telephone and paid on the day. • They believed the payment had been completed as it was their first time using this system. • They had opted to not receive confirmation texts so were not aware the payment was unsuccessful. • They do not believe they should have to pay the penalty. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and states their history shows they pay for parking. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted their original appeal to the parking operator. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision: When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park. This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. The parking operator has provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £85 PN will be issued to drivers who fail to purchase a valid parking session via RingGo, rail ticket vending machine or ticket office. The parking operator has provided evidence of a system search for the registration XXddXXX, to show that there was no payment made for the vehicle in question to park. I appreciate the appellant attempted to pay for their parking in good faith. I also acknowledge that they always pay for their parking. I cannot take into consideration any previous parking experiences as this does not dispute the validity of the PN issued. Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with the signs, the parking operator has obtained the RingGo call transcripts for the day in question. This confirms that the appellant failed to enter the additional details required to progress to process the payment. There is no evidence to confirm that a valid payment was made on the day. Therefore, I am not satisfied the appellant complied with the terms and conditions or that their parking was authorised. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PN has been issued correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence, the motorist used a private car park without making a valid payment and did not comply with the rules and regulations. I conclude this PN has been issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

A tale of caution. I have "sat on" this decision for a couple of days, wondering whether to follow up.  I feel very hard done by in that I am a reasoanble person and what I consider to be a shortcoming of the system - a hole into which I fell - has been denied.  You will note that the assessor fully accepts that I had every intention of following the signs (which I did) to pay - and indeed I believed that I had.

Actually "hard done by" doesn't cut it - more "furious".

What now?
* A learning experience - and indeed I suppose that is a silver lining.
* A story I can (and will, loudly and for a long time) share.
* Perhaps a letter someone at APCOA or SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) to invite them to comment.


Edit to add - short URL to this thread - http://www.passenger.chat/apcoa - to allow easy sharing

[JayMac]

Pay only the parking fee due. Don't pay any penalty. Railway land covered by byelaws so they'd have to take you to magistrates court. Highly unlikely.

[grahame]

* Perhaps a letter to someone at APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) or SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) to invite them to comment.

Done, and I will share the response I get (in addition to the immediate one from their automated system

We endeavour to respond to all customer complaints in 14 working days.  However, if we are unable to resolve a complaint within 28 days (due to the nature of your complaint), we will write to you to advise you of our progress.

[Mark A]

Not surprised you're furious. They've taken a lot of personal data from you, and it's galling that parking systems are set up to be very capable at the task of recording times of entry/leaving but they tend to drop the ball when it comes to collecting payment - almost as though they're set up to generate some of their income in penalties.

Also, it's not good enough that businesses who give the nod to this approach think it's ok to shrug and say 'Nothing to do with us' when one of their customers is immolated by practices like this.

If parking is to be paid for I'm trying to think of a reason why contactless payment terminals wouldn't suffice, but while we're here, a querty keyboard to enter reg. numbers or the option of a QR^▸ (QR Code - Quick Response code) scanner to enter the reg number would be good, the client tasked with generating a QR code (on paper or via an app on their phone) that lists their registration number.

As for installing and using an app provided by a parking provider, no, no and thrice no.

And also, given the scale of the income generated by car parking charges/taxi access, why are so many station car parks so scruffy? You'd think they'd be lovely, with flower beds and wildflower plantings, but noooooh...

Mark

[ChrisB]

Any sign online of your account being semi-complete, for example? Anything that might point to your attempt to pay?

[grahame]

Any sign online of your account being semi-complete, for example? Anything that might point to your attempt to pay?

I have the full Ring-go log from the POPLA appeal, which shows all of the steps taken including which questions were answered. That includes the questions on card no., expiry date and security code, after each of which it moved on to the next question.   You will notice from the appeal decision that my intent to pay was not questioned.  What I did not complete was the make and colour of the car - didn't know the call had dropped rather than going on to these.  Odd that they appear to be the last questions!

[bobm]

In my experience it is very unusual these days for a mobile call to drop mid conversation when the user is not moving about.  Almost makes you wonder if “the system” hung up. 

[grahame]

In my experience it is very unusual these days for a mobile call to drop mid conversation when the user is not moving about.  Almost makes you wonder if “the system” hung up. 

Indeed - or it's possible that the user jammed the phone against his ear in the storm and hit or squeezed the wrong button - again most unusual (only time I have done that). The reason for the call terminating is not known.   

[ChrisB]

Hmmm - I get calls dropping quite regularly, even in built-up areas. It does still happen.

[bradshaw]

It is worth reading the reviews on the Apple app store. A number had the same problem.
We have to park in Yeovil and i have to remember to take cash as the app/phone based parking has reviews which mean I would not wish to use it.

[grahame]

... A number had the same problem. ...

I have learned over the weekend that I am far from the only one - sounds like APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) or the agents they use may have a systemic problem, but be putting the onus on their customers rather than admitting to the issues.   Is it just me, or does that remind others too of another organisation that's in the news at the moment; the problems of APCOA users, mind you, are many orders of magnitude less.

[PhilWakely]

... A number had the same problem. ...

I have learned over the weekend that I am far from the only one - sounds like APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) or the agents they use may have a systemic problem, but be putting the onus on their customers rather than admitting to the issues.   Is it just me, or does that remind others too of another organisation that's in the news at the moment; the problems of APCOA users, mind you, are many orders of magnitude less.

Sounds like a job for BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)'s Watchdog team   

[Witham Bobby]

On 1st November, I parked in the APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) car park at Woking Station as Storm Ciaran developed, and for the first time found myself faced with electronic register and pay as the only way to pay - not even a machine with a contactless card panel.

I phoned in to the automated system and entered my details - registration, time I wanted to park for (system confirmed price back), credit card long number, expiry date and security code. I declined to pay extra for text reminders and receipts, and headed off to London for the 50th celebration event of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Imagine my shock at getting a letter a week later with a picture of me entering and leaving the car park (yes, that was me) and telling me I had not paid, and was required to pay a penalty charge.  Hindsight and subsequent evidence suggests that my phone connection cut out before I answered final questions covering the make and colour of the vehicle, and although the fee had been agree by me and details give, APCOA had not taken the money and considered me to be in breech.


On the grounds that I had every reason to believe I has paid, I questioned the fee with APCOA who pointed out that I had been parked there, that they had not received my money, and they upheld the penalty charge.  Most unsatisfactory; I had made every effort to pay and as a first time user of their system had no way of knowing that I had not done so.


The Car Parking industry has a trade body - POPLA - who will take appeals from motorists who feel that one of their members (APCOA in this case) has got it wrong, and as I believe that the APCOA system is out of order, I appealed - result back in the last few days.   Here is the judgement:

Decision:  Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case: The parking operator has issued the penalty notice (PN) for use of private car park without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case: The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They registered by telephone and paid on the day. • They believed the payment had been completed as it was their first time using this system. • They had opted to not receive confirmation texts so were not aware the payment was unsuccessful. • They do not believe they should have to pay the penalty. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and states their history shows they pay for parking. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted their original appeal to the parking operator. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision: When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park. This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. The parking operator has provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £85 PN will be issued to drivers who fail to purchase a valid parking session via RingGo, rail ticket vending machine or ticket office. The parking operator has provided evidence of a system search for the registration XXddXXX, to show that there was no payment made for the vehicle in question to park. I appreciate the appellant attempted to pay for their parking in good faith. I also acknowledge that they always pay for their parking. I cannot take into consideration any previous parking experiences as this does not dispute the validity of the PN issued. Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with the signs, the parking operator has obtained the RingGo call transcripts for the day in question. This confirms that the appellant failed to enter the additional details required to progress to process the payment. There is no evidence to confirm that a valid payment was made on the day. Therefore, I am not satisfied the appellant complied with the terms and conditions or that their parking was authorised. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PN has been issued correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence, the motorist used a private car park without making a valid payment and did not comply with the rules and regulations. I conclude this PN has been issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

A tale of caution. I have "sat on" this decision for a couple of days, wondering whether to follow up.  I feel very hard done by in that I am a reasoanble person and what I consider to be a shortcoming of the system - a hole into which I fell - has been denied.  You will note that the assessor fully accepts that I had every intention of following the signs (which I did) to pay - and indeed I believed that I had.

Actually "hard done by" doesn't cut it - more "furious".

What now?
* A learning experience - and indeed I suppose that is a silver lining.
* A story I can (and will, loudly and for a long time) share.
* Perhaps a letter someone at APCOA or SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) to invite them to comment.


Edit to add - short URL to this thread - http://www.passenger.chat/apcoa - to allow easy sharing

The whole "car parking industry" is full of deliberate traps, ready for the unwary to fall into.  It's designed this way to maximise revenue.  A legalised form of robbery.  I'd offer to pay for the parking and defy them to take you to court if they think you owe any more

[IndustryInsider]

As a councillor and general person of influence, I would not blame Graham for not wanting to risk a court appearance.

[Witham Bobby]

As a councillor and general person of influence, I would not blame Graham for not wanting to risk a court appearance.

Agreed - it is a daunting prospect and a lottery as to any outcome.

As I type, I am waiting on a judge's decision in Manchester today on a case involving a fatal (but entirely foreseeable) "accident" which the defendants may well succeed in getting thrown out of court, simply because of a mis-placed hyphen in an email address used for service