PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Smart Parking PCN, inputting wrong registration in to the payment machine
PhilG66
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 11:26
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,439



Hi, New here so not sure if obeying all the rules......

I took delivery of a brand new vehicle on 14/8/2018 and my partner used it for the day on 21/08/2018, she parked in a private car park in Altrincham, Goose Green Multi Storey car park. She paid the correct fee for the time she was there but inadvertently put in the registration of her vehicle in to the ticket machine. Approx 2 weeks later i received a PCN for £100 but giving me a 14 day period by which to pay a reduced fee of £60.
I appealed the PCN using the tear off section at the bottom of the PCN and sent in a letter explaining what had happened. Smart Parking have rejected this appeal........ (no surprise there) shall i ignore it now or appeal through POPLA as they suggest a route of action in the rejection letter.

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Advertisement
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 11:26
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 12:03
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



POPLA will say that the PCN was issued correctly. Has the driver been identified ? How much exactly was the "Approc" 2 weeks later ? Post up the PCN, suitably redacted, but leave the dates.

It may be a case of leave to court stage as a court would probably, and has done previously, state that the contract was in main completed in that the parking was paid for and the wrong number was de minimis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PhilG66
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 13:31
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,439



Thanks for the quick response.

Driver has been identified, never in doubt as it was my partner.

Date of contravention 21/08/2018
Date of PCN TC50xxxxxx 02/09/2018

will see what POPLA come back with and then leave it with Smart Parking to pursue it to court, they've had my Parking fee........ not getting any more money out of me.

Thanks for the advice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 19:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



PCN dated Sunday 02/09, presumed delivered two working days later Tuesday 04/09, though this could be argued as it could not have entered the Postal System on a sunday but on the Monday. Oh Dear, 15 days after the alleged breach, no keeper liability.

Not saying you don't know the driver, do SMART know the identity of the driver? If not then modify your post #3 so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. By identify do they know the ame and serviceable address?

If they don't have the identity of the driver then this should have been sent to SMART:

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc


Post up the Notice to keeper, suitably redacted, so that we can see what else they are missing

You can appeal to POPLA about the failure to comply with POFA and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable. Let's look for more fails.

Here's POFA Have a look through it, especially section 9 and 9 (4) especially

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 19:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 21:31
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Yes, there's no loss to them parķing was paid for, they can check that days data against ANPR and fined the other vehicle never entered.
But there's no money in that for them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Simple answer - you now appeal to POPLA and win because you were not driving.

This is a cinch.

You appealed, you said who was driving (didn't give her full name and address, thank Goodness, because you nearly mucked this 100% win up) but you are the appellant - POPLA code & rejection letter addressed to you, yes? - so you win. No need to pore over the POFA. Every Smart Parking thread tells you that they don't use that Act and can't hold a keeper like you liable.

Copy any recent Smart POPLA no keeper liability appeal you care to Google and find on here or MSE (Googling it finds both results, just read a few, you will learn how easy these are)!

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 23:41
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:31) *
Yes, there's no loss to them parķing was paid for, they can check that days data against ANPR and fined the other vehicle never entered.
But there's no money in that for them.

They don't want the parking fee! The PPC business model depends on catching motorists "in breach" of their little contracts, so if you accept that a contract can be formed in this manner, failing to enter the correct registration would have be a clear breach of the terms and conditions. Them suffering "no loss" is not a winning argument--not following Beavis. However, courts do often apply common sense if a case makes it all the way to a courtroom, and the law allows for some wiggle room if the judge is inclined to use it. As mentioned, there is an argument that the error was so trivial, or "de minimis", that the claim should be dismissed. But it is always better to avoid court if you can...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:35
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here