Smart Parking playing fast and loose.

torontoboy45

I've been slapped with a £90 'demand' from these clowns. overstayed in a free car park by 20 mins and picked up by parking sensors located on the tarmac.

no initial letter offering a 'discount'. Instead a letter informing me that the 'grace' period was over and the 'oustanding amount' was for £90. interestingly, the letter was dated 07/04/14 but not received until 10 days later! so much for 14 days notice,eh?

anyway, I'm on the case, using coupon's excellent template, to launch a 'soft' online appeal and.........'could not be processed. try again in 24hrs'!
could it be that smart parking's software picks up on lengthy appeal wording and blocks it?

these people and their ilk may me feel sick. I'm keeping a close note on everything and will try another 'appeal' tomorrow.

Redx

more likely that it exceeds the maximum number of characters allowed for an online appeal , sometimes you need to shorten them a bit

stluke023

its in the bag really, they will argue that you cannot appeal any more, but this is not true
What you want is them to issue a POPLA code, either voluntary usually after a failed appeal to the Operator or insist they give you one
a poster schoolrunmum has this advice
Further and in the alternative, I request an Order for the claim to be stayed pending the allowance of both parties to undertake ADR in the form of a POPLA appeal, similar to Court Orders in a number of this Claimant's cases now successfully resolved by POPLA, such as in the order made by District Judge Mayor, Croydon Court, 13/09/13 (Case no. 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and by Deputy District Judge Bridger, Southampton Court, 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin). POPLA place no deadline on the case being referred to them and will allow a BPA member to issue a POPLA code at any stage. The British Parking Association, which is the Trade Body for this claimant, are on record as being particularly keen for the authorities to recognise POPLA as the bespoke ADR for this industry and actively encourage cases to be referred. In the interests of saving the court's time I agree to accept the findings of POPLA in my case even though in the normal course of events their decisions are not binding on a motorist.

Getting a POPLA code is your get out of jail card

also read this#
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/new-parkingeye-court-case-referred-to.html

torontoboy45

Redx wrote: »

more likely that it exceeds the maximum number of characters allowed for an online appeal , sometimes you need to shorten them a bit

On that basis: coupon's advice re online is pointless. Have I got this right? Why should the girl's template fail the test when the borderline scammers tells me 'try again in 24hrs'?

Can you see where I'm going with this?

atilla

The 'not so smart' appeals page was plying up for me the other night too.
Just logged out of it, then back in and it then allowed me to carry out my weekly ritual of telling them to do one.
Rather nicely, they always send me a formal letter of cancellation.

It's a silly game but eh oh, if it keeps them happy wasting money. lol

Redx

torontoboy45 wrote: »

On that basis: coupon's advice re online is pointless. Have I got this right? Why should the girl's template fail the test when the borderline scammers tells me 'try again in 24hrs'?

Can you see where I'm going with this?

no , not true

I said this may be the case in this case, as it does happen with some companies , meaning the template letter has to be shortened, doesnt mean its true in your case or with this PPC, it was a possible explanation that may or may not be true

basically , who cares ? I dont , its merely the case that these companies find all kinds of ways to use as stalling tactics and this could be one of them , or a genuine glitch

the sticky thread has to encompass dozens of companies so is a guide only, to be adapted to suit each case

or print , put in envelope , send at PO with free proof of posting certificate - doesnt matter how long it is then, nor if their online system is working or not !

Coupon-mad

Not sure why people keep starting threads worrying about Smart when a quick search of the forum shows they cancel as soon as they see the words 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' and no-one even has to go to POPLA any more with this lot. They don't invoke POFA 2012 either so there is no keeper liability at all. Search 'Smart' as a keyword - there are only so many times we can post the same old thing.

torontoboy45

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not sure why people keep starting threads worrying about Smart when a quick search of the forum shows they cancel as soon as they see the words 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' and no-one even has to go to POPLA any more with this lot. They don't invoke POFA 2012 either so there is no keeper liability at all. Search 'Smart' as a keyword - there are only so many times we can post the same old thing.

You're under no obligation to post anything.

But , lo it came to pass: after getting all foot-stampy, shouting about GPEOL, insisting on a cancellation or a POPLA code, demanding -with heavily sarcastic overtones - a response to my appeal, the cancellation letter came yesterday .

Perversely, I was a bit disappointed; I would have enjoyed a punch-up with these clowns.

HO87

Ah, yes Smart Parking - the well-known owymoron. Didn't "do" court when their old owner ran the show and since the takeover by the then Car Parking Technologies Ltd of NewZealand/Australia, haven't "done" either.

The fact that the board of the NZ/Oz parent company describe their PCN's as "civil penalties" (in publicly available documents) and assure shareholders that they are looking to increase revenue from them by ensuring they charge "market rates" doesn't really fit the GPEOL model.

Perhaps we have always anticipated a little too much of PPC's in expecting them to understand and apply the niceties of contract law when faced with such an opportunity to make money?