SCS Law & Smart Parking

manwyl · 9 February 2018 at 7:52PM

My drafted reply is below. I have argued my points and attacked theirs before ending it robustly as advised.

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx.

You don't appear to have answered my question - "please can you confirm how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations to my own, but for which there is no record of them entering or leaving the car park on the day/at the time in question?". You have instead sent the transaction report. I know this is incomplete because a Smart Parking employee has already admitted there was a ticket bought for a car registration that wasn't in the car park that day. It was very similar to my car’s registration. This report does not contain the similar registration number.

Please confirm how often the ticket machines and ANPR cameras were serviced and/or synchronised with each other and the date/time checked for accuracy. You have only provided data from the supposed time entering the car park until 11 minutes before the supposed leaving time. The date and time used to produce the list of transactions may not be accurate e.g. the clocks went forward an hour at the end of March (approximately 6 weeks before the alleged offence). If the clocks on all the equipment wasn't updated automatically or manually then the data produced in the report would be for the wrong period of time. Any time discrepancies could hide a valid transaction. Either way, a ticket was paid for and displayed in the car well within ten minutes of entering the car park.

Please confirm how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations to my own, but for which there is no record of them entering or leaving the car park on the entire day in question.

The photos provided, although clear this time, aren't accompanied with a date and time stamp to show when they were taken. This doesn't prove the signs were present or readable at the time of the alleged offence and without a date stamp the likelihood cannot be determined.

You have attempted to justify the legitimate interest in controlling parking to ensure parking for Matalan customers however this is contradicted by another sign on display throughout the car park. This sign says "Have you paid & displayed? Refund for Matalan customers". It can be seen on google street maps.

Refunds for Matalan customers. Therefore no refunds for non-Matalan customers. Therefore customers and non-customers can use the car park. A true legitimate interest in ensuring parking was available for customers would mean parking for Matalan customers only. Beavis does not apply.

Did you and Smart Parking enjoy the Parliamentary debate recently, exposing the outrageous conduct of debt collectors and robo-claim solicitors cosily nestling with the rogue parking firms, where Smart Parking were named and shamed? If you proceed, I will bring the will of Parliament to the attention of the court to show the conduct of this reportedly 'out of control' rogue ticketer who have been sacked by Asda and Matalan in the past year alone, for aggressively ticketing customers.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

I will be complaining to my MP to ensure their backing to end this scam!

I expect a reply within 7 days informing me this matter has been concluded.

manwyl · 12 February 2018 at 5:53PM

Hi all, I'll get my draft sent tomorrow and post an update once I get a reply unless anyone feels it needs changing or adding too? Many thanks

Coupon-mad · 12 February 2018 at 9:40PM

I would remove the exclamation mark after 'scam' at the end. Better with no exclamation mark.

And I would remove this as I just can't follow the logic, and it almost reinforces their 'legitimate interest' for you to draw attention to their 'attempt to justify it':

You have attempted to justify the legitimate interest in controlling parking to ensure parking for Matalan customers however this is contradicted by another sign on display throughout the car park. This sign says "Have you paid & displayed? Refund for Matalan customers". It can be seen on google street maps.

Refunds for Matalan customers. Therefore no refunds for non-Matalan customers. Therefore customers and non-customers can use the car park. A true legitimate interest in ensuring parking was available for customers would mean parking for Matalan customers only. Beavis does not apply.

logician · 13 February 2018 at 12:44AM

manwyl wrote: »

I will be complaining to my MP [STRIKE]to ensure their backing to end this [/STRIKE][STRIKE]scam![/STRIKE] to highlight how your client operates and provide details of my situation

I expect a reply within 7 days informing me this matter has been concluded.

I would remove the word "Scam" altogether and use the wording above.

if this gets before court and a judge - it is better to have a more 'moral' stance.

Calling it a "Scam" may not go down too well before a judge.

Coupon-mad · 13 February 2018 at 12:49AM

manwyl wrote: »

Hi all, I'll get my draft sent tomorrow and post an update once I get a reply unless anyone feels it needs changing or adding too? Many thanks

Wait and see what any other regulars with over 1000 posts say, first.

logician · 13 February 2018 at 12:58AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wait and see what any other regulars with over 1000 posts say, first.

You seem to have an obsession with members and the number of posts they have made.

Surely quality over quantity when appropriate advice is given should be the order

manwyl · 13 February 2018 at 9:04AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And I would remove this as I just can't follow the logic, and it almost reinforces their 'legitimate interest' for you to draw attention to their 'attempt to justify it':

I'm no expert on this so please forgive me if I'm wrong. I was hoping to point out the difference between my situation and the case (Beavis) they seem to be relying on so far. As far as I understand it, in the Beavis case it was a free car park with limited staying times to encourage a churn of customers and increase the opportunities for genuine customers to park there. In my situation, it would appear due to the signs on display, the car park is for anyone to use. Not just Matalan customers. This contradicts their statement "controlling parking to ensure parking for Matalan customers". Total BS. If the whole of Cheltenham Town FC turned up, filled this car park and went to a match (if they paid they'd be entitled to do so) then there wouldn't be any room for customers. A genuine control of parking for Matalan customers would surely be backed up by the car park being for customers only. It isn't, so their only potential loss is if someone didn't pay for a ticket. So once they reveal the tickets bought for cars that didn't enter the car park (and finding the one that 99% matches my registration) it should highlight that there is no loss to them and therefore the penalty has no legitimate purpose.

If this is correct shouldn't I make them aware that I am aware of it and this will form part of my defence?

nosferatu1001 · 13 February 2018 at 10:20AM

Logician - Its more, quality posts tend to be proven over time
As opposed to yours, which are just suspect over time.

[Deleted User] · 13 February 2018 at 10:39AM

The o/p may need to tighten up his wording, but it seems clear that as a straightforward proposition, where there is a PAY AND DISPLAY parking conditions (with no further restriction eg. for matalan customers only), then parking is open to everyone.

All the o/p needed to do was to purchase a ticket and then he had a licence to remain on the private land for the parking period purchased. The existence of a refund scheme for Matalan customers is to encourage customers of that store to visit - it has no material impact on those parking who were not customers, save that some visitors may choose not to park there.

Beavis will always apply insofar as it is authority for whether the damages sought are a penalty term and whether there is legitimate aim (once the Court has determined whether the o/p was in breach of contract for failing to purchase a ticket and/or displaying it.)

Coupon-mad · 13 February 2018 at 1:19PM

That's a better explanation.

It was the use of the words 'You have attempted to justify the legitimate interest in controlling parking', that I felt gave too much credence to the other side. Let's not acknowledge any legit interest.

SCS Law & Smart Parking

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free