Smart Parking PCN Options

[Steve80]

Dear All,

I need some assistance regarding a PCN I received from Smart Parking for exceeding my Parking Ticket by 7 minutes. Please find attached the letter I received from Smart Parking and my original parking ticket.

If I was to appeal this Notice it would potentially be on the below grounds:

The times provided on the CCTV images are inaccurate. They were at least 10 minutes ahead of GMT. (I accept this would be difficult to prove however it is true)
Only 1 out of the 3 Ticket machines were working which took at least 5 minutes to queue for and was 100 metres distance from where I parked. (If Smart Parking cannot maintain their equipment is there any grounds here?)
Even if their times on the CCTV were accurate my parking ticket was only expired by 7 minutes. Is there an allowance or grace period for overstaying your parking ticket like in NCP's?

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Attached File(s)

 Smart_2.pdf ( 549.9K ) Number of downloads: 670
 Smart_3.pdf ( 90.79K ) Number of downloads: 305

 

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Their notices are not PoFA compliant.

Did it arrive within 14 days?

10 minutes is the 'accepted' grace period.

Put in a challenge that their notice is not complaint for keeper 'liability' and no grace period has been allowed. State the period of parking was paid for. As parking is £1 is would definitely say £100 IS extravagant.

[Dennis Basher]

Hi Steve80

You've left a few of pieces of information on these scans that really need to be redacted (i.e. vehicle reg number, barcode and PCN number). You'd be best off taking these down, cleaning them up and re-posting.

[Jlc]

Also note their camera's only capture entry and exit and not actual parking.

[Dennis Basher]

As Jlc points out, Smart's notices are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). In fact this one doesn't even bother to attempt to claim keeper liability under POFA 2012. Therefore, Smart can only pursue the driver for the charge; as long as they don't know who the driver was, this will prove to be a bit of a problem.

Also, I see that the notice claims that the alleged breach took place within "Waterworld". A quick Google search shows that there must be at least half a dozen "Waterworlds" across the UK - these range from theme parks to swimming pools to pet, aquatic and garden centres. This is another Smart fail - they haven't even managed to specify exactly where this alleged incident happened.

[ach]

Hi Steve I have received similar notice 2 days ago on same date, My wife and her friend were in waterworld on same day as far as I know they paid the parking charges but still we have received same kind of notice.on the notice it says the date as 13/05/2015 but it came to us on 18/05/2015. please let us know what we can do
Thanks

[emanresu]

@Ach Start your own thread and don't hijack this one. Why don't you look at your last thread and send in a POPLA appeal as you did before (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95620)

Get the Mods to split this. Use the REPORT button.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Sat, 23 May 2015 - 05:04

[Steve80]

Thanks for your comments and assistance. Please find below the challenge I intend to send to Smart Parking. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX, wishing to challenge the Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXX which was issued on XXXXXXXX. My challenge is based on a number of factual inaccuracies in addition to your failure to comply with current legislation regarding the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. I have detailed these points below in a clear and concise manner. In response to this I would expect Smart Parking to concede every point in the reply and a withdrawal of the PCN to take place. I would also expect a full apology for the time, inconvenience and expenses incurred relating to this matter.
1. The sum of £100 Smart Parking are seeking in relation to an alleged overstay in a car park, bears absolutely no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by either you or the landowner. The driver of the vehicle had a valid parking ticket (£1 for 3 hours) with an expiry time of 14:32. Your CCTV image alleges that the vehicle exited the site at 14:39. If the alleged incident did take place you would in effect be charging the driver £14.29 per minute which is clearly excessive and unreasonable.
2. Smart Parking have failed to provide any evidence that the vehicle XXXX XXX was parked in a parking space for the alleged 7 minute overstay. The only evidence provided is that the vehicle exited the site at 14:39. Smart Parking have failed to provide evidence that the vehicle was parked in a parking space in the car park thusly rendering the notice null and void.
3. If the alleged 7 minute overstay did take place this is 3 minutes inside the universally accepted 10 minute grace period afforded to vehicles exiting a pre-payment meter car park.
4. The driver alleges that 2 out of 3 of Smart Parking’s Pre Payment meters were out of order on a Bank Holiday Sunday with no Parking attendants on duty. This would indicate that the Company does not maintain its own equipment and takes significant shortcuts when maintaining the Car Park. Any allegations made by Smart Parking obviously isn’t supported with reliable evidence.
5. The driver also alleges that the CCTV time was inaccurate and vehicle XXXX XXX exited the site at 14:29 GMT. Smart Parking’s CCTV time was incorrect and it can only be assumed that the Company have again failed to maintain their equipment and systems.
6. Smart Parking states that the alleged breach of its terms and conditions took place in Waterworld. It fails to provide a full address including street, town, post code or even a country. If the alleged offence took place in the UK the company will find that there are number of Waterworlds based across the UK. This is a clear breach in the information required to serve a PCN.
7. The contract with the landowner is not compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Smart Parking have no legal status to offer parking or enforcement charges, nor pursue them through the courts.
8. The Notice To Keeper has not been correctly 'given' under POFA 2012 and due to the many omissions, it is a nullity. As the driver has not been identified for this parking event, Smart Parking do not have the right party for their alleged 'contract/breach' since they have failed to establish keeper liability.
Should you decide not to withdraw the Parking Charge Notice I will be taking this matter to POPLA. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I will claim my expenses for costs incurred and time lost. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue this matter with myself you agree to pay these costs when I prevail. If you choose to reject this challenge then please forward a POPLA code, in order for this matter to be taken up with the independent appeals service.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.

[Albert Ross]

4.

The driver alleges that 2 out of 3 of Smart Parking’s Pre Payment meters were out of order on a Bank Holiday Sunday with no Parking attendants on duty. This would indicate that the Company does not maintain its own equipment and takes significant shortcuts when maintaining the Car Park. Any allegations made by Smart Parking obviously isn’t supported with reliable evidence

.

Only 1 out of the 3 Ticket machines were working which took at least 5 minutes to queue for and was 100 metres distance from where I parked.

(If Smart Parking cannot maintain their equipment is there any grounds here?)

I would contend that [if a contract occurred] it was not breached but frustrated. Through the negligence of Smart in maintaining their obligations at the car park

[nosferatu1001]

Are you appealiong as keeper or is the driver appealing? there is a confusion of terms. You should make it explicit that the appeal is from the keeper and keeper only. References to what the driver saw / did / etc should be prefaced with "I understand that the driver..."

[Steve80]

Thanks for your responses. Just to clarify I will be appealing as the registered keeper only. I'll make the necessary adjustments so thanks again for your advice.

[tiggerpsych]

Hi All,

New to forum but have had the same problem as above.


Thanks in advance,

Tiggerpsych

edit - my apologies - as i said earlier - new to the forum. I'll put this in a new thread.

This post has been edited by tiggerpsych: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 - 11:41

[nosferatu1001]

One case, one thread. Please hit "report"

given the PPC can happily take 35 days to respond, the chances of an update by now on the thread here is slim to none, as it would only really be if they cancelled - which most dont

Edit and remove any reference to who drove. Menawhile read round for what to do...

[Hedgeninja]

Dear all,

In my ignorance could someone please clarify how Smart's notices are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Any information on this matter to further my understanding would be appreciated.

[ostell]

You may care to read, especially Para 5 and susequent
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted

[Hedgeninja]

Much appreciated, thank you.

[Steve80]

Thanks All,

Smart Parking have cancelled my Parking Charge Notice as attached so thanks to everyone on the Forum for their assistance. I also emailed Waterworld and complained about the Notice. I received an email from the Manager saying that they had instructed Smart Parking to cancel the notice. So I'm not sure what the reason was for the cancellation but I'm happy with the outcome!

Attached File(s)

 Parking_Charge_Notice_Cancellation.pdf ( 144.16K ) Number of downloads: 580