Drivers taken to court over car park keying errors

Drivers have said they are being unfairly penalised due to payment machines that make it difficult - or impossible - to enter car registrations correctly.

Some car park operators are sending drivers £100 parking charge notices (PCNs) due to what are known as "keying errors".

The trade associations for private car parks say drivers should not be given PCNs for "minor" keying errors, and charges for "major" keying errors should be reduced to £20.

However, this is not always happening, and some drivers are being taken to court if they refuse to pay the £100 charges.

Donna Nash, from Worksop in Nottinghamshire, was ordered to pay Excel Parking £282 after she lost a court case against the car park operator.

She had parked in its Newcastle Avenue car park in Worksop, and only entered the first two letters of her registration before paying.

"The machine jumped forward and asked me to make payment," she said.

"I made payment, not aware there was any particular issue. I just thought that was normal for that machine."

Excel Parking argued Mrs Nash had broken the contract she entered into when she used the car park, as the terms and conditions stated she must enter her full vehicle registration mark.

But in her witness statement, Mrs Nash claimed the machine had been "set up to trick motorists into paying too soon".

She provided the judge with photos of tickets bought by other drivers who have had the same problem.

However, District Judge Heppell said he was "not satisfied there was any fault with the machine".

He ordered Mrs Nash to pay the £100 PCN, plus other costs, totalling £282.

Speaking after the hearing on 21 February, Mrs Nash told the BBC: "I just feel sick to be honest with you.

"It's taken a lot of our time. It's just been very stressful and hard."

Her husband, Jonathan Nash, said: "The machines shouldn't allow for you to only enter two letters because there are no registrations in the UK that haven't got numbers, so as far as we're concerned that's a fault in the machine itself."

Excel Parking told the BBC it "vehemently" refutes there is a problem with the payment machines.

All of the people who spoke to the BBC told us they paid using machines that required them to enter their vehicle registrations.

They then received PCNs through the post asking for £100. While PCNs are sometimes referred to as "fines", they are effectively letters demanding money for alleged breach of contract.

Some people said they had made mistakes when entering their registrations.

However, some insisted they entered their registrations correctly, but the machines had either not printed them in full, or had printed them incorrectly.

Others said they started entering their registrations but the machines "jumped" to the payment screen as soon as they pressed the first one or two letters.

One of the alleged keying error hotspots is Syston Town Square car park in Leicestershire, where more than 100 people have been issued with PCNs.

People affected say they have entered their vehicle registrations in full, but the machine missed off some of the letters and/or numbers.

Tracy Campbell was filmed entering the registration LG19 BRV - but it came up on the machine as LG19 BII.

Private car park operators are meant to follow the sector's Code of Practice.

According to the Code of Practice, parking charges should not be pursued where the driver has "paid the tariff but made a minor keying error when registering their vehicle".

The code says the charge should be reduced to £20 for "major keying errors".

Therefore, if drivers receive a £100 PCN they can appeal to the car park operator with evidence that they bought a ticket, and ask for the charge to be reduced to £20.

If the appeal is rejected, they can also appeal to one of two appeals services - POPLA or the IAS - depending on which trade association the operator belongs to.

However, the BBC has spoken to drivers who appealed but were not offered reduced charges of £20, including Donna Nash.

When drivers do not pay the charges, car park operators often issue court claims against them for alleged breach of contract.

Some of the drivers then pay, due to fear of being taken to court, but some choose to challenge the charges in court.

Lynda Eagan, who runs a Facebook group helping people fight charges, said parking operators often discontinued cases before hearings.

"They will commonly cancel it at the last minute," she said. "They let their cases get right up to the point where they have to pay the court fee."

This was what happened to Richard Degnan, who received a PCN after parking at the Crown Street car park in Leeds, and had appeals rejected by both Excel Parking and the IAS.

Mr Degnan prepared to fight his case in court, but when he arrived, was told the claim had been discontinued.

However, some cases are heard in court, and although Donna Nash lost her case, judges dismiss some.

This was what happened when Sietske Sikkema defended herself against Excel Parking at Derby County Court on 31 January.

She had accidentally entered her registration incorrectly when using the Copeland Street car park in Derby, because she was rushing.

This is the car park where Rosey Hudson was asked to pay £1,906 for taking too long to pay.

Deputy District Judge Nathan Smith said he accepted Ms Sikkema had made "an innocent mistake" when she typed in "AOV AO14" instead of "AO14 AOV".

He said it was "difficult to see what legitimate reason the claimant [Excel Parking] has for enforcing the term", adding that the £100 plus £70 they demanded was "disproportionate to the mistake that was made".

As well as dismissing the claim, he ordered Excel Parking to pay Ms Sikkema's travel expenses for attending court.

However, Ms Sikkema told the BBC that the case had caused her a lot of stress.

"It's taken up a lot of time, which is quite frustrating really, knowing that it's such an obvious mistake, so I think it's unfair to people to act like that," she said.

There are two trade associations for private car park operators - the British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC).

Their joint Code of Practice states that parking operators "must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors".

It states this should "include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying errors".

The BBC told the BPA about the problems with Syston Town Square Car Park because the operator, Euro Car Parks, is one of its members.

The BPA has said it will investigate, including looking at signage and machines.

The BBC also contacted the IPC, because Excel Parking is one of its members.

The IPC said its "initial investigations indicate we are unaware of this issue being raised previously with us".

The BBC contacted Euro Car Parks on 6 February but has not had a response.

We asked Excel Parking about the reported problems with its payment machines in Worksop and Leeds.

It said: "We vehemently refute there is a problem with the pay machines at the two car parks.

"The transactional data for the period in question shows that 98.1% of motorists input a complete vehicle registration mark."

However, this suggests about one in 50 did not manage to input a complete registration.

Lynda Eagan said keying errors - and subsequent PCNs - could be prevented by installing better payment machines.

"They could so easily stop and ask you, 'is that your full registration number? Press the green button'. And that would solve all the problems," she said.

The RAC believes charges for keying errors should be banned completely.

Head of policy Simon Williams said: "The company concerned ought to be able to see if the registration plate of a vehicle entering a car park [captured on an ANPR camera] doesn't match with what they put into the machine, and if it doesn't they ought to be able to flag that up and no parking charge notice should be issued."

In relation to the problems at Syston Town Square car park, he said: "The company concerned is turning down all the appeals, absolutely wrongly in our opinion.

"We call on Euro Car Parks to overturn these and refund all the money concerned."

The RAC has been campaigning for the reintroduction of the Private Parking Code of Practice, which was withdrawn in 2022 because of legal challenges from the industry.

"There's a consumer working group which we are part of and we are desperate to get this code into operation to protect people from private parking operators who really aren't following best practice," Mr Williams added.

Follow BBC Nottingham on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.