Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 2nd Mar 17, 10:05 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Snowtime1
    NCP Smart Matalan Hayes
    • #1
    • 2nd Mar 17, 10:05 PM
    NCP Smart Matalan Hayes 2nd Mar 17 at 10:05 PM
    Hello.

    Hopefully I would be totally grateful if someone can help.
    I got a NCP in the post after parking in matalan in hayes without a pay and display..

    I was in there for approx 2 hrs 30 mins.
    I made a stupid mistake and now it's going to cost me even thought I did shopping there too!

    I read through the posts on here and would like help overturning the PCN.
    I saw the BPA template is correct for the appeal however I have some concerns about the words on the PCN I got and the words in the appeal letter.

    Is the current template still valid for smart parking appeal?

    PCN letter that says "smart parking ltd have the right to seek payment of the marking charge for unauthorized parking of the vehicle on the land on the relevant date as the owner of the land, on the basis of a contractual right to occupy or have possession of the land, or acting as the agent of the land owner"

    Does that statement not void the template statement?

    Template;
    Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

    PCN Letter :
    " The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and the car park is managed by smart parking ltd"

    PCN Letter:
    Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parkingeye vs Beavis, it has now been established that a parking charge notice issued on private land is enforceable. the court rejected claims that such charges are extravagant or unconscionable and advised that such charges act as a necessary deterrent for breach of contact.

    I am worried about appealing and then it going to court etc and causing more trouble.
    £50 fine within 14 days and £85 after

    Hopefully someone can say the template is still valid as an appeal.

    Thanks for all your help in advance.

    Kind regards.

    S
    Last edited by Snowtime1; 02-03-2017 at 10:26 PM. Reason: edit
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 2nd Mar 17, 10:52 PM
    • 16,936 Posts
    • 21,061 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 2nd Mar 17, 10:52 PM
    • #2
    • 2nd Mar 17, 10:52 PM
    its a pcn , not ncp

    and yes , the blue text template appeal in the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of this forum is still valid , still current and still up to date and nothing "voids" the template

    please use it

    ps:- there is no "fine", but there is a speculative INVOICE
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Mar 17, 1:01 PM
    • 51,818 Posts
    • 65,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 3rd Mar 17, 1:01 PM
    • #3
    • 3rd Mar 17, 1:01 PM
    I am worried about appealing and then it going to court etc and causing more trouble.
    £50 fine within 14 days and £85 after
    It is not a fine, you are not in trouble and Smart Parking never sue - and they are 100% beatable at POPLA as long as you follow the forum templates and never say who was driving.

    Do not pay, do not panic, this is simple to win at POPLA like all the other Smart ones.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • MothballsWallet
    • By MothballsWallet 3rd Mar 17, 1:04 PM
    • 11,575 Posts
    • 15,170 Thanks
    MothballsWallet
    • #4
    • 3rd Mar 17, 1:04 PM
    • #4
    • 3rd Mar 17, 1:04 PM
    OP, round this board we refer to Smart Parking as "Not So Smart" because, well, they're not "smart" at all

    Follow the advice on here and you're guaranteed to win against them.
    Married to an immigrant.
    I live in the UK City of Culture 2021
    Always ask yourself one question: What would Gibbs do?
    • mubashar
    • By mubashar 10th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mubashar
    • #5
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    Looks like (Not so) Smart Parking Ltd have been busy issuing PCN's by post for alleged breaches of T&C at Matalan Hayes. Just got their identical letter though the post with exception that the vehicle pictures indicate that it was in and out on March 3 2017 within 15 minutes.


    I'm not trying to hijack this thread. I just want to seek a clarification which I'm sure Snowtime1 will also found it useful. I understand that Snowtime1 will 100% win this appeal, but am I correct in understanding that there may be a number of further correspondences, appeals, threats, escalations that Snowtime1 may have to endure in the mean time?


    Also, if Snowtime1 just ignored all such correspondence, what are the risks associated with that option?


    Please don't take this as me impeding on another case but just seeking further clarity based on snowtime1 scenario or what to be prepared for if going down this appeals process vs ignoring all correspondence from Smart Parking Ltd and their associates?


    Thank you in advance.
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 11th Mar 17, 2:15 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:15 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:15 PM
    I sent in my appeal online. I expected an automatic message to be emailed to say they got my appeal and got nothing.
    Email address in appeal was correct.... nothing yet.
    All I got was a page that said they will contact me about my appeal in the next few days.

    I sent in the appeal online again and took screenshots incase they ask me to provide evidence. Terrible system! They could turn round and say they did not get an appeal request.
    Last edited by Snowtime1; 11-03-2017 at 2:17 PM. Reason: edit
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 11th Mar 17, 2:19 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:19 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:19 PM
    I understand that Snowtime1 will 100% win this appeal, but am I correct in understanding that there may be a number of further correspondences, appeals, threats, escalations that Snowtime1 may have to endure in the mean time?
    Originally posted by mubashar
    I hope not sent in appeal twice online. a good IT system would have given an automatic reply to say appeal rec.

    I couldn't see a record of my first appeal online which was worrying.
    Last edited by Snowtime1; 11-03-2017 at 4:47 PM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Mar 17, 12:09 PM
    • 40,521 Posts
    • 80,919 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #8
    • 12th Mar 17, 12:09 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Mar 17, 12:09 PM
    Looks like (Not so) Smart Parking Ltd have been busy issuing PCN's by post for alleged breaches of T&C at Matalan Hayes. Just got their identical letter though the post with exception that the vehicle pictures indicate that it was in and out on March 3 2017 within 15 minutes.


    I'm not trying to hijack this thread. I just want to seek a clarification which I'm sure Snowtime1 will also found it useful. I understand that Snowtime1 will 100% win this appeal, but am I correct in understanding that there may be a number of further correspondences, appeals, threats, escalations that Snowtime1 may have to endure in the mean time?


    Also, if Snowtime1 just ignored all such correspondence, what are the risks associated with that option?


    Please don't take this as me impeding on another case but just seeking further clarity based on snowtime1 scenario or what to be prepared for if going down this appeals process vs ignoring all correspondence from Smart Parking Ltd and their associates?


    Thank you in advance.
    Originally posted by mubashar
    This is the danger of asking questions on someone else's thread. We don't know what your circumstances are so the advice to the OP may differ from advice we might give to you on your own thread. However, the advice to ignore has not been given on this site since the law changed in 2012.

    Always begin with the NEWBIES thread then start your own thread if you have further questions.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 9th Apr 17, 11:56 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 17, 11:56 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 17, 11:56 PM
    OK.
    I got a PCN notice... and a POPLA verification code.
    Says I was parked in the car park too long.
    I can pay the £80 or I have a verification code and can appeal.

    What do I do now? I read through the templates and cannot see the one that is relevant to me... Any chance someone could provide some guidance please?
    It was smart parking, matalan, over stayed and no payment. Hayes.


    Many thanks in advance.

    Snowtime1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 17, 12:04 AM
    • 51,818 Posts
    • 65,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I read through the templates and cannot see the one that is relevant to me... Any chance someone could provide some guidance please?
    Easiest thing for you to do is put 'Smart POPLA no keeper liability' into 'search this board' and change the default search to 'SHOW POSTS' (not show threads!!).

    In your results you will get 2017 Smart POPLA appeals already written. ALL have won!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 11th Apr 17, 12:46 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    Do I need to go back and take photos if I am to compare it to the 'Beavis case' ?
    I can't remember where all the signs etc were... lettering etc now. It had been a while and I want to avoid going back at all costs.

    Currently drafting a reply based on:
    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71892120&highlight=popla+smartpar king

    Most of the other appeals do not have much info.. people do not reply on what grounds they won...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 17, 2:58 PM
    • 51,818 Posts
    • 65,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Most of the other appeals do not have much info.. people do not reply on what grounds they won...
    Because Smart don't contest, if people submit a long and detailed forum appeal. So there is no reason or grounds that won - ''the PPC threw in the towel'' is usually the outcome.

    No you don't need to do any hard work/no need to take photos in order to use the template about signage comparing it to the Beavis sign. If Smart contest, they have to show their evidence/signs.

    Show us your draft once you've perfected it.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • j5emm
    • By j5emm 12th Apr 17, 8:28 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    j5emm
    hi, I too have had a parking charge notice from smart parking, I visited my local Matalan with my disabled mum, parked in a disabled parking bay and you can clearly see the disabled badge on display on my dashboard, I went into the store to register the vehicle details as requested on a small A3 sized piece of paper as we entered the store and was told that there wasn't anyone on customer services and to just do it at the end when we paid for our goods....neither of us wanted to buy anything and left the store...so not registering the car details...not that it said anywhere to register the details so we didn't get a parking charge notice through the post.
    fast forward a few weeks, pcn arrives and hubby takes it down to the store to show how unhappy he was about it...to be assured that they were having a few problems with the parking company and that she would deal with it....fast forward a few more weeks and its now a letter from DRP to say that we overstayed paid time (we were in the store 29mins) and that we now owe £155. hubby again went down to the store to ask why we had this when he had been assured it was going to be dealt with this time he was told that there was nothing they could do....
    do we contact anyone or just wait it out....
    Last edited by j5emm; 12-04-2017 at 8:29 PM. Reason: missed out detail
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Apr 17, 8:38 PM
    • 51,818 Posts
    • 65,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    hi, I too have had a parking charge notice from smart parking, I visited my local Matalan with my disabled mum, parked in a disabled parking bay and you can clearly see the disabled badge on display on my dashboard, I went into the store to register the vehicle details as requested on a small A3 sized piece of paper as we entered the store and was told that there wasn't anyone on customer services and to just do it at the end when we paid for our goods....neither of us wanted to buy anything and left the store...so not registering the car details...not that it said anywhere to register the details so we didn't get a parking charge notice through the post.
    fast forward a few weeks, pcn arrives and hubby takes it down to the store to show how unhappy he was about it...to be assured that they were having a few problems with the parking company and that she would deal with it....

    fast forward a few more weeks and its now a letter from DRP to say that we overstayed paid time (we were in the store 29mins) and that we now owe £155. hubby again went down to the store to ask why we had this when he had been assured it was going to be dealt with this time he was told that there was nothing they could do....

    do we contact anyone or just wait it out....
    Originally posted by j5emm
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5632913

    Enough posts about debt collectors for today...please...this is not needed.

    What was missing from the NEWBIES sticky thread when you read it first? The entire section in post #4 of that thread is about debt collector stage, top of this forum.

    What I would ask is what happened when you complained to Matalan's Head Office about the store lying to you?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • j5emm
    • By j5emm 16th Apr 17, 9:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    j5emm
    Thanks for the link you have posted, I'm awaiting reply from Matalan head office but as ever a bank holiday gets in the way! I will let you know if they reply.
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 16th Apr 17, 10:24 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    Good Luck!
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 16th Apr 17, 10:25 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    My appeal: Please let me know what you think . Many thanks again!
    Most of it are copy and paste from another appeal. I took out a few bits where they mentioned their case.
    I have not mentioned the driver to date and have the right to do so.

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    Re: Parking notice: xxxxx POPLA Verification Code: xxxx Vehicle reg: xxxxxx
    Issued by: Smart Parking Ltd


    I wish to strongly appeal against this charge on the basis:

    APPEAL POINT 1


    I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by!SmartParking Ltd in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at <LOCATION> on <DATE>. I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).
    I the registered keeper of vehicle registration ******* and I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:

    Appeal point 1

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    I believe the signs at this car park do not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    The signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.


    Since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, I believe these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':


    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:



    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put smartparking to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require smartparking to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    Appeal point 2


    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    Appeal point 3


    As Smartparking does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what Smartparking is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put Smartparking to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement



    On the basis of all the points raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP.

    I look forward to your prompt reply.

    Yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Snowtime1; 16-04-2017 at 10:27 PM. Reason: edit
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 17, 12:10 AM
    • 51,818 Posts
    • 65,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need a point that says why the Smart Parking PCN isn't a POFA one (and yes, that's been done to death on dozens of threads so we are not expecting you to write it from scratch). Search the forum.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 17th Apr 17, 12:12 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    I'm on the case! advanced search time. that will be appeal point 1.. let me find and draft it in!

    Thank you !!!!!
    • Snowtime1
    • By Snowtime1 17th Apr 17, 12:34 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Snowtime1
    Why do I feel bad copy and pasting this?
    Thanks to harto;
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72108518&highlight=smart+parking+ pcn+pofa

    Appeal 1 in post 17 becomes 2, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 4.
    Below is appeal 1:

    Appeal point 1:

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 strictly defines the criteria that any NTK must comply with. The PCN detailed above does not comply with POFA on the following clauses

    - 9 (2) (b) "The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full". The NTK does NOT state the driver is required to pay parking charges, nor does it state that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

    - 9 (2) (d) "The notice must specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is (i)specified in the notice; and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4))". The NTK does nots state the total amount of the parking charges that were unpaid. In fact it makes no reference to the charge that should have been paid or any monies paid towards that value whatsoever. In actual fact, parking charges have been paid in full. I attach a copy of the parking ticket purchased to cover the full duration of the stay at the car park ove the period in question. In error, the registation number of the previous family vehicle was entered. Nevertheless, full parking has been paid for and Smart Parking can attest to the fact that no vehicle with the registartion AD06 UJA entered, left or was present within the car park during this period.

    - 9 (2) (e) "The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper- (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver" The NTK does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

    - 9 (2) (f) "The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid". The NTK does not provide this warning, it does not refer to needing the drivers name and current address nor does it state that the creditor has the right to recover from the keeper after 28 days if it does not have this information. It merely states that a parking charge needs to be paid within 28 days.



    Will that be enough do you reckon?

    Thanks in advance.

    snowtime1
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

352Posts Today

2,801Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • RT @thismorning: With his last deals of the year, @MartinSLewis wishes us all a 'very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a wonderful and?

  • RT @stoneygran: @MartinSLewis I furtively used a pub toilet last night before getting on the bus and felt really guilty!

  • Follow Martin