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
    • ValL
    • By ValL 29th Sep 17, 8:58 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 6Thanks
    ValL
    Smart Parking appeal refused
    • #1
    • 29th Sep 17, 8:58 PM
    Smart Parking appeal refused 29th Sep 17 at 8:58 PM
    I appealed to parking eye before reading any advice on this web site and admitted to being the driver of the vehicle. I paid for parking and was issued with a ticket but unfortunately was unaware I needed to enter number plate. I sent copy of ticket but appeal refused on grounds number not entered as per contract. Has anyone won an appeal in this type of circumstance? Can anyone advise me further? I have two witnesses that I paid and displayed my ticket.
    Last edited by ValL; Yesterday at 10:53 PM. Reason: Incorrect operator
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 17, 11:21 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 29th Sep 17, 11:21 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Sep 17, 11:21 PM
    How come their faulty system allows a ticket to be printed with no VRN input?

    Sounds like by accepting the money and printing you a ticket as a licence to park, it can be argued at a hearing that you fulfilled your side of the bargain and paid and displayed, and they varied the contract by producing a ticket for you anyway.

    That argument won't win on appeal at POPLA, you'd need other points as well. But it could win in small claims if POPLA doesn't work for you and PE try a claim. Certainly I don't think anyone should be paying PE £100 or more for a failure of their system, coupled with busy, high signs with too many wordy instructions.

    So put together a POPLA appeal based on the NEWBIES thread post #3, and show us the draft. You WILL NOT win at POPLA just by describing what you've described above.
    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.

    • ValL
    • By ValL 12th Oct 17, 7:38 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:38 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:38 PM
    Thanks for your reply. I have just returned from trip abroad and only now had time to investigate this matter further. The company in question is Smart Parking and not PE. I was parked in private car park outside Sports Direct so will try to speak to manager as well as writing to them to try to get this dismissed but don't hold out much hope on that score with this particular company. As stated above I admitted to being the driver and failed to input my VRM having failed to read the signs. I simply paid and pushed green button. Ticket said pay and display so did this. I was unaware of the ANPR cameras and think this will be my only hope for winning appeal.1 signage especially BPA 21.1 2 landowner authority, and 3 contract printing ticket when no vrm entered was also no social justice for penalising driver who has paid fee. Circumstances different from beavis. The ticket printed out the word !!!! where the vrm should have been and yes I certainly was. When I spoke to a car park attendant after discovering my misdemeanour he said someone must have been messing around with machine. I wonder if this could also be used as part of my appeal? Computer doesn't want me to write !!!! in capitals which is what was on my ticket shortened form of Richard.
    Last edited by ValL; 12-10-2017 at 7:51 PM. Reason: Word missing
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 7:51 PM
    • 16,110 Posts
    • 20,176 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:51 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:51 PM
    POPLA wont accept any mitigation or story, so will ignore that part of any appeal

    the popla appeal should be based on legal arguments, as seen in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

    arguments such as

    NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
    POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    BPA CoP failures
    not the same as BEAVIS

    shame the driver was dobbed in , otherwise POFA2012 failures and NTK errors would be the main points to start with (POFA does not protect drivers)
    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
    • ValL
    • By ValL 17th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    I have put this together for my POPLA appeal and wonder if you would check it over and give me any further advice.
    I have copied verbatim the landowner authority and signage sections from the newbies link but this site won't allow me to post those links here. I have added the following arguments and also have some photos of signage from the car park. Should I attach these to this appeal or wait to see what evidence smart parking submit and send at that time?

    This car park did not adhere to the British Car Parking code of practice for the use of ANPR camera technology.
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    The signs in this car park have a tiny space stating ANPR not readable and meaningless to anyone not having an understanding of this technology. I could see no mention of the word camera nor do the signs specify that this technology will be used to monitor cars entering and leaving the site.
    From the drivers parking position the most prominent parking sign stated ‘Have you paid and displayed?’ This alongside the driver having not seen signs indicating camera monitoring or the requirement to enter the cars ANPR led the driver to believe that paying for a parking ticket and displaying it on the windscreen was all that was required. This is the case of other pay and display car parks in this town. By providing the driver with a ticket although no ANPR was entered could be presumed to be a variation of contract.

    No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge
    This case is unlike that of Beavis in that the car park in question is a pay and display car park and the full fee was paid for two hours although the car remained only for an hour and three minutes. This is therefore a punitive charge from an understandable human error by an innocent law abiding driver. This charge can therefore be deemed to be extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable in the circumstances.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 17th Oct 17, 5:19 PM
    • 7,180 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 17, 5:19 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 17, 5:19 PM
    Have you seen this?


    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html
    Last edited by The Deep; 17-10-2017 at 5:24 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • ValL
    • By ValL 17th Oct 17, 7:12 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 7:12 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 17, 7:12 PM
    Thanks maybe I could add something from this to the end of my appeal.
    • ValL
    • By ValL 20th Oct 17, 3:39 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    • #8
    • 20th Oct 17, 3:39 PM
    • #8
    • 20th Oct 17, 3:39 PM
    Hi I now have my draft appeal based mostly on one written by Coupon Mad for Shazam14 in October last year. The newbies blog states don’t use older than 2017 but I can’t find anything else similar. Shazam’ s case was similar to mine in that he’d admitted being the driver. I’ve found this quite difficult using only an iPad mini and I’m not really well up on modern technology. I have my draft in pdf form so can I post that here for someone to look at and advise further. It is too wordy for me to cut and paste it here
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 20th Oct 17, 3:44 PM
    • 7,180 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 20th Oct 17, 3:44 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Oct 17, 3:44 PM
    They keep trying this on. It is a scam.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Oct 17, 3:50 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have my draft in pdf form so can I post that here for someone to look at and advise further. It is too wordy for me to cut and paste it here
    Yes please, post a 'broken link' (change to hxxp) to the PDF hosted by Dropbox or tinypic or Google docs.
    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.

    • ValL
    • By ValL 20th Oct 17, 6:24 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    I’m sorry I’ve got the drop box app but the technology needed to send my document here is beyond me.
    I have basically added this first point to your appeal for Shazam 14 and changed shop name and penalty charge amount to reflect my circumstances.
    I am the driver and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below. If this operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.

    1) Faulty equipment.

    This was my first visit to this car park. I thought this was a pay and display car park similar to others in the town. I failed to see the signs/instructions informing me to input my VRN into the payment machine so simply paid the correct fee and pressed the button for a ticket. I now know that no ticket should have been issued without a VRN being input into the payment machine. Had the machine rejected my coin and not produced a ticket the misdemeanour would have been avoided.

    I most certainly did not type the four letters printed on the parking ticket produced and even if I had, no ticket should have been produced because this is not the correct format for a VRM. Because of this malfunction in the Smart Parking payment machine and the fact that they accepted my payment and issued a ticket without any VRM being input I would submit that no binding contract was in force.

    A case very similar to this one was dismissed by Judge Middleton at Bodmin County Court on 26.10.2016.

    I require Smart to produce a record of payments received and ANPR record of vehicles entering and leaving the car park between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.40 a.m.
    I will try to find someone who can help to produce the document here but otherwise will just have to send it and hope for the best.
    • ValL
    • By ValL 21st Oct 17, 8:19 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    I just want to thank everyone for their help unfortunately I just don’t seem able to edit my appeal down to allow it to be uploaded here
    I have set out 7 points of appeal
    1 faulty equipment,
    2 Breach of BPA code of practice principles,
    3 genuine customer cancellation criterion unevidenced and not explained to drivers

    4 landowner authority,
    5 Signage
    6 signs don’t say what ANPR will be used for
    7 Unlike

    I will have to send it off and hope for the best. I’ll report back when I hear outcome. No matter what I will not pay the charge and may be back to ask for advice for court case!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Oct 17, 10:20 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I require Smart to produce a record
    I thought you said this was ParkingEye?

    This was my first visit to this car park. I thought this was a pay and display car park similar to others in the town.
    Have you already shot yourself in the foot by saying who was driving in your appeal, then?

    I failed to see the signs/instructions informing me to input
    Nononono, never say you failed to see/do anything.

    They failed, not you.

    Please show us your full appeal by putting two points in each reply, one after another. Stop rushing, and no sending it anywhere. POPLA Codes last for 30+ days and these codes NEVER stop working at a weekend, so you always have till a Sunday night at least, even if you think your time is up.
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    • 3,964 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    KeithP
    I thought you said this was ParkingEye?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Corrected in post#3.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Oct 17, 10:40 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And I see they blabbed about who was driving. Would have been 100% slam dunk win v Smart. Now it's fingers crossed.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; Yesterday at 10:44 PM.
    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.

    • ValL
    • By ValL 21st Oct 17, 10:42 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    Panicked in first instance and failed to read everything properly as was going abroad. I feel really stupid now. It is smart parking and I appealed to them saying I was driver and didn’t enter VRM as failed to see I needed to. Very naively thought as I had ticket they would simply cancel penalty. Will try to upload appeal tomorrow and remove what you’ve said. Thanks
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 21st Oct 17, 10:46 PM
    • 224 Posts
    • 209 Thanks
    claxtome
    Can I suggest you correct the name of the thread as well to refer to Smart
    • ValL
    • By ValL 21st Oct 17, 11:33 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    Have tried to rename thread. Sorry but never done anything like this before, it’s an enormous learning curve
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Oct 17, 11:41 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Don't apologise - you did it, now it reads as 'Smart Parking' to those who click on your thread.

    So let's see your draft appeal now in several posts if it's easier, but beware of copying & pasting directly from Word documents:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5706338
    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.

    • ValL
    • By ValL 22nd Oct 17, 12:44 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ValL
    POPLA Code

    VRM


    I am the driver and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below. If this operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.
    1) Faulty equipment.
    This was my first visit to this car park. I thought this was a pay and display car park similar to others in the town. I failed to see the signs/instructions informing me to input my VRN into the payment machine so simply paid the correct fee and pressed the button for a ticket. I now know that no ticket should have been issued without a VRN being input into the payment machine. Had the machine rejected my coin and not produced a ticket the misdemeanour would have been avoided.
    I most certainly did not type the four letters printed on the parking ticket produced and even if I had, no ticket should have been produced because this is not the correct format for a VRM. Because of this malfunction in the Smart Parking payment machine and the fact that they accepted my payment and issued a ticket without any VRM being input I would submit that no binding contract was in force.

    A case very similar to this one was dismissed by Judge Middleton at Bodmin County Court on 26.10.2016.
    I require Smart to produce a record of payments received and ANPR record of vehicles entering and leaving the car park between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.40 a.m.
    2) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice Principles
    Under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they:
    (a) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
    (b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for.
    21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles
    21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''
    The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith. This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that a correct VRN is an 'obligation' which runs such a risk and will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.
    The fact is, a BPA AOS operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. I require that the operator provides POPLA with a copy of their policy and proof that those checks were made in this instance. Further, I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the retailer/landowner allows this unfair fining of paying customers.
    If it is not in the contract it is not a contravention that can give rise to a penalty.
    In their rejection letter, Smart have failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone.
    This is an inappropriate parking charge which should have been cancelled on appeal. I remind Smart that operation and enforcement is not just about issuing PCNs and collecting money from hapless victims, regardless of any legitimate interest, reasonableness or appropriateness. In fact the BPA CoP mentions in the Introduction 'minimum standards' (suggesting they are set low) as well as the importance of 'acting in a professional, reasonable and diligent way' in issuing 'appropriate' parking charges:
    2.6 By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which you will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with you. Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.
    2.9 The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:
    • designing and using signs
    • using ANPR and associated systems
    • appropriate parking charges.
    And in the ANPR section:
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.
    To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine shopper who did pay and display is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'.

    I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' so the PCN should have been cancelled. I submit that to pursue a genuine shopper who paid & displayed is contrary to the wishes of the retailers/landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately refusing my appeal.
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

1,931Posts Today

7,097Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin