Smart Parking and land ownership

Iceweasel

samueldizzle wrote: »

Also, is it true that road markings on private land (eg. double yellow lines) are worthless?

Yes - absolutely worthless.

Coupon-mad

samueldizzle wrote: »

Post code for asda is DA9 9BT and it falls under Dartford Borough Coucil.

Thanks

No it doesn't fall within the Council land, you don't need to go into this detail.

Asda always LIE about owning their car parks. You can tell that it's theirs simply because SMART PARKING are Asda's agents! You don't need to know anything else.

Your case is no different than any other, just do a short appeal to Smart (not saying who was driving!) followed by a winning POPLA appeal (with our help). Your case is like this one where a person on pepipoo was on a (private, Smart Parking version!) 'double yellow line' to load bags:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79646

I post as SchoolRunMum on that forum and I was quite proud of post #9!

samueldizzle

Just had a look on the pepipoo forum, very similar to my case so thanks for that, appreiciate it. I'll appeal to Smart and no doubt have it rejected.

Coupon-mad, why should i avoid naming myself as the driver, how would i then state my case for my car being there? Not that it really matter i guess, they aren't even legitimate yellow lines, i'm quite looking forward to seeing where this goes haha!!

I'll keep the forum updated once i receive the, by the sounds of it, standard template from Smart and Spazda!!

The_Slithy_Tove

samueldizzle wrote: »

why should i avoid naming myself as the driver, how would i then state my case for my car being there?

If they don't know who the driver was, they have to resort to chasing the "keeper" of the vehicle. However, they can only do that if they adhere precisely to the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA), something which most PPCs fail to do. This failure means they are back to chasing the driver. But if they don't know who that was, then they have a problem.

If you contact them, rather than saying something like "I didn't see the signs", you say, "the driver...". Or better, simply challenge the fact that the signs are unclear and do not conform to the BPA CoP (this shifts the whole appeal from being based on what the driver did to what the PPC have/haven't done, challenging the whole basis of the charge).

Coupon-mad

samueldizzle wrote: »

Just had a look on the pepipoo forum, very similar to my case so thanks for that, appreiciate it. I'll appeal to Smart and no doubt have it rejected.

Coupon-mad, why should i avoid naming myself as the driver, how would i then state my case for my car being there? Not that it really matter i guess, they aren't even legitimate yellow lines, i'm quite looking forward to seeing where this goes haha!!

I'll keep the forum updated once i receive the, by the sounds of it, standard template from Smart and Spazda!!

As The Slithy Tove says, only responding from the point of view of the keeper strengthens your position and diminishes their chances of making this stick. Your appeal is easier at POPLA stage too as you can point out their breaches of the POF Act and why the registered keeper has no liability. They are then left with a POPLA-cancelled fake PCN and no knowledge of who the driver was. Smart will be up the creek without a paddle!

Have you only got a windscreen fake PCN so far? If so you must WAIT for the postal Notice to Owner (which should be a 'Notice to Keeper' but Smart get it badly wrong unless they have updated their template!! ). You want that non-compliant postal letter in your collection of rubbish from Smart, which is why you just wait...a month or two...if you only have a manual fake PCN plonked on your car windscreen.

Have you already got the first letter or not - and is it a NTO rather than a NTK?

nigelbb

A big advantage of responding as the vehicle keeper is that PPCs almost always mess up complying with POFA 2012 anyway so can never pursue a keeper for unpaid parking charges. Their non-compliance just needs to be raised at POPLA to guarantee a win. A POPLA verdict that they must cancel the charge is binding on the PPC so they can never pursue the driver once POPLA has ruled in favour of the keeper.

samueldizzle

Well, as far as the keeper is aware, they're still within the 2 week discount and haven't received anything else but the fake PCN on their window...just getting some practice in

So on that basis, is it normal to not bother contesting the PCN to Smart until further documentation is received through the post?

I'll advise whether it states NTO or NTK tomorrow when the invoice is looked at, can't remember off the top of my head!

samueldizzle

Right, i have the invoice with me now. It reads...

To: The user, registered owner or person entitledto (sic) possession of the vehicle.

I've checked the post and haven't received anything, but wouldn't this be in the latter stages of them enquiring to the DVLA for my details?

bazster

Before they can write to the keeper they have to wait 28 days from the day after the litter was stuck to your car to see if the driver responds. Then they have another 28 days to write to the keeper. So you've got a fair old wait yet.

I stress, do nothing in the meantime. You want to get that Notice to Keeper in the post. They often shoot themselves in the foot with it.

Coupon-mad

samueldizzle wrote: »

Well, as far as the keeper is aware, they're still within the 2 week discount and haven't received anything else but the fake PCN on their window...just getting some practice in

So on that basis, is it normal to not bother contesting the PCN to Smart until further documentation is received through the post?

I'll advise whether it states NTO or NTK tomorrow when the invoice is looked at, can't remember off the top of my head!

The NTO is what they call their postal NTK, so just wait for that to arrive. Re the bit in bold above, YES it is absolutely normal to ignore the fake 'discount period' (desperate bribe) as you won't be paying the thing! Never respond to a private parking ticket on the windscreen, never.