Parking fine in a gridlocked car park Options

[Salzar]

I’ve received a fine for spending ~20 minutes in a car park (Smart Parking) that was completely gridlocked. I entered, got stuck in gridlocked traffic, and left as soon as possible ~20 minutes later - I didn’t park my car because as you can tell, there was no space. It feels like they’re charging me for a service that they were unable to provide.

I appealed with Smart Parking and unsurprisingly, they’ve rejected it. They’ve whipped out all the Ts & Cs of Section As and Paragraph Cs and all of that. As I understand it, I’ve made a rookie error of admitting I was the driver but I’m past the point of getting the discounted fee, so there’s no harm in appealing further. I’ll have to pay £100 either way at this point.
Any of you legal folk have any Section As and Paragraph Cs that I could use in my appeal to POPLA?

Many thanks

[Advertisement]

[Half_way]

Where do you get this crazy idea you will have to pay £100?
You will pay them nothing and tell them to FOAD, and then tell them to pay you compensation for the trouble they have caused you
the Private pakring industry is an unregulated sham
Whos car park was this?

[Salzar]

Where do you get this crazy idea you will have to pay £100?
You will pay them nothing and tell them to FOAD, and then tell them to pay you compensation for the trouble they have caused you
the Private pakring industry is an unregulated sham
Whos car park was this?

Haha, my thoughts exactly. This is Margate Dreamland car park owned by Smart Parking

[DWMB2]

The above is a tad extreme (perhaps don't tell them to FOAD ), but correct insofar as you can still fight this successfully.

First off let's see the notice you received. Upload both pages, redact personal info but leave everything else on.

POFA is out of the window, but there are still things to include in your POPLA appeal that should kill this off:

• Landowner Authority: this is key for Smart Parking as they frequently have issues with this. Use the text from the MSE Forum here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...omment_71287628. Include this point in your POPLA appeal and there's a decent chance Smart will pull out.
• You didn't park, and couldn't leave due to traffic. The following could be some useful reading to help you with this point: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014...arking.html?m=1

You may wish to share a draft before submitting.

This post has been edited by DWMB2: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 - 11:08

[Salzar]

The above is a tad extreme (perhaps don't tell them to FOAD ), but correct insofar as you can still fight this successfully.

First off let's see the notice you received. Upload both pages, redact personal info but leave everything else on.

POFA is out of the window, but there are still things to include in your POPLA appeal that should kill this off:

• Landowner Authority: this is key for Smart Parking as they frequently have issues with this. Use the text from the MSE Forum here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...omment_71287628. Include this point in your POPLA appeal and there's a decent chance Smart will pull out.
• You didn't park, and couldn't leave due to traffic. The following could be some useful reading to help you with this point: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014...arking.html?m=1

You may wish to share a draft before submitting.

Thank you very much for this - really helpful!

Hopefully this works for the images: https://imgur.com/a/TiaFqSb

[Redx]

Where do you get this crazy idea you will have to pay £100?
You will pay them nothing and tell them to FOAD, and then tell them to pay you compensation for the trouble they have caused you
the Private pakring industry is an unregulated sham
Whos car park was this?

Haha, my thoughts exactly. This is Margate Dreamland car park owned by Smart Parking

It won't be owned by Smart Parking, Smart are a sub contractor enforcing a parking contract on behalf of the landowner or managing agent ( somebody who contracted with them )

Few if any private parking companies own the land that they monitor

[hcandersen]

Getting away from procedural propriety of notices for a moment and getting back to square 1:

a)has [the creditor] the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges;

I don't know, I wasn't there. But you were.

If you entered the car park, were actively looking for a place to park, did not park and did not exit your vehicle then they have no right to enforce against the driver, whoever it was.

If you could look a judge in the eye and with conviction state this, then carry on.

Their reply is nonsense as you've probably worked out. In the context of the above, no contract was formed and no requirement was imposed on you to consider a contract because you did not park, you were therefore unable to establish any Ts and Cs etc.

I would like to see your 'appeal' pl.

[andy_foster]

The rejection is generic tosh that clearly does not address the points raised in the "appeal". IMHO that in itself is variously a misleading and aggressive trading practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008*. I consider that Half_way's response is somewhat mild in the circumstances.

N.B. What I consider and what I might be happy to write on something that might eventually be placed in front of a judge should not be taken as an indication that anybody else should do so.

*In a test case in (?IIRC) Humber Crown Court some years ago, UKPC were convicted of one of those offences in relation to an appeal they wrongly rejected.
N.B. If anybody feels that I should discuss the subsequent appeal for balance, it would provide insight, but not balance.

[Half_way]

It would appear that the car parks are Dreamlands car parks: https://www.dreamland.co.uk/visit/ so complaints should go there, at the same time reminding them that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents - as they will try and fob you off with a "nothing to do with us, we allow smart to manage our car parks for us
"" type response
This may also be of use should Dreamland dig there heels in http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014...ot-parking.html followed with another reminder that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents and should they not cancel then they ( dreamland) could be liable for your costs

[mickR]

land owned by Sands Heritage Ltd. including the previously council owned car park

[thevaliant]

I’ve received a fine for spending ~20 minutes in a car park (Smart Parking) that was completely gridlocked. I entered, got stuck in gridlocked traffic, and left as soon as possible ~20 minutes later - I didn’t park my car because as you can tell, there was no space. It feels like they’re charging me for a service that they were unable to provide.

Your answer in your appeal to POPLA is included in your opening statement.

You entered the car park, it was full, there were no spaces. Therefore Smart Car Parking couldn't offer you anything.
You left as soon as practically possible, but due to traffic, this was after the five minutes the BPA code states must be offered.

Smart Parking could not offer anything, therefore there can be no contract.

There is little more to say than that.

I don't know if you'll be successful at POPLA. They don't really do legal defences.... they'll probably simply state the charge was issued correctly.
A judge will not have the same opinion.

A robust challenge to Smart Parking might see this one off. A simple, "You did not offer parking, and the driver left as soon as possible." should let them know you're not an easy mark. Anything you might have to support this (Dashcam footage) will definetly help, but a simple statement from you (as the driver) will put you in a good place.

The real pain is that it's unlikely to go away, and you'll probably face six years of letters and debt collectors asking for the money. That's the real pain in the backside.

[DWMB2]

The real pain is that it's unlikely to go away, and you'll probably face six years of letters and debt collectors asking for the money. That's the real pain in the backside.

If in addition to the points about the traffic, they challenge their authority to operate on the land as I suggested in post #4, there's a very real chance it will go away.