Smart Parking @ Asda, Newquay

ami66

Well having followed all the advice I am now one of the stranded 4000 appeals!

GPEOL was not the only reason I raised and Smart provided no evidence so not quite sure what to do next :undecided

However aside from the appeal issue - whilst the appeal was adjourned the vehicle was involved in an accident, written off and scrapped. Also the keeper of the ex-vehicle has moved out to uni so is no longer living at this address.

If the appeal is eventually heard and Smart Parking win can we simply deny any knowledge of the keeper without some impact on him in the future?

Redx

the fact that the car is scrapped is not relevant, it was working on the day of the parking incident and if Smart wanted they could try a court claim against the keeper if popla rule in favour of Smart

they have 6 years to make a claim against the Keeper

ie:- the KEEPER on the day in question

if that KEEPER doesnt get the court papers, they could receive a default judgment against them and then a CCJ would follow

so could turn into an easy ride for smart, if they tried it on in court

Umkomaas

The POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist (if it goes against them), but is binding on the PPC if the motorist wins - they have to cancel the charge.

It is only then open to a court case, should the motorist lose, for the charge to be enforced (and the motorist has the opportunity to defend against the claimant).

Smart aren't litigious, but do have 6 years to pursue.

Forget all about vehicle write-off or denying any knowledge of the keeper. Little untruths can backfire spectacularly if exposed in court. Remember Mr & Mrs Huhne?

Coupon-mad

ami66 wrote: »

Well having followed all the advice I am now one of the stranded 4000 appeals!

GPEOL was not the only reason I raised and Smart provided no evidence so not quite sure what to do next :undecided

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69900242#Comment_69900242

HTH

ami66

Ok update time

Received a letter from Wright Hassall on12th April dated 7th April asking me for any other points to be raised within 7 days of date of letter.

Sent rapidly put together email reiterating my previous points and also in regard to point 1 - No genuine pre-estimate of loss stated that the Supreme Court did not suggest that the Beavis decision was in any way applicable to every car park and parking ‘charge’ situation. On Nov 4th they tweeted that the judgment was taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices'.

Smart Parking Ltd has not attempted to relate their case to that of ParkingEye v Beavis, and to therefore justify their charge. It is their responsibility to make their case. As they have not, there is therefore nothing for me to rebut. I content it is not the assessors’ job to make the case on behalf of the operator.

Heard nothing not even an acknowledgement of my email until 7th Sept when I received an email with an attached letter requesting more evidence.

As I was on holiday I missed most of the week and at first panicked then calmed and thought who are they actually asking to provide that evidence? Am I being really dense or is it not very clear?

Decided not to reply as it seemed to aimed at Smart Parking not me.

Anyways got another email today – appeal ALLOWED !


link removed

Thanks for everyone who contributes so much, yes it takes a lot of reading and digesting but all the information need to beat these companies is here in numerous posts and stickies!

beamerguy

ami66 wrote: »

Ok update time

Received a letter from Wright Hassall on12th April dated 7th April asking me for any other points to be raised within 7 days of date of letter.

Sent rapidly put together email reiterating my previous points and also in regard to point 1 - No genuine pre-estimate of loss stated that the Supreme Court did not suggest that the Beavis decision was in any way applicable to every car park and parking ‘charge’ situation. On Nov 4th they tweeted that the judgment was taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices'.

Smart Parking Ltd has not attempted to relate their case to that of ParkingEye v Beavis, and to therefore justify their charge. It is their responsibility to make their case. As they have not, there is therefore nothing for me to rebut. I content it is not the assessors’ job to make the case on behalf of the operator.

Heard nothing not even an acknowledgement of my email until 7th Sept when I received an email with an attached letter requesting more evidence.

As I was on holiday I missed most of the week and at first panicked then calmed and thought who are they actually asking to provide that evidence? Am I being really dense or is it not very clear?

Decided not to reply as it seemed to aimed at Smart Parking not me.

Anyways got another email today – appeal ALLOWED !

Thanks for everyone who contributes so much, yes it takes a lot of reading and digesting but all the information need to beat these companies is here in numerous posts and stickies!

Good news :T

For a change Wright Hassall has woken up to the real world.
You won, most Wright Hassall decisions are complete rubbish.

Wonder how Wright Hassall will get on with all the complaints about them to the SRA

I understand Wright Hassall are a 100 yr old firm, maybe dementia has set in

And Smart Parking ... who said Smart Parking ? ... who are they ???
OH YES THE LOSERS ?

Coupon-mad

Wow, WHOPLA actually specified that they wanted Smart Parking to send them 'a site map showing the signs at the site'. WOW?!

So to be fair to you, did they ask you for 'the appellant's own photos of the signs at the site'? Nope? Thought not.

Like I said in POPLA Decisions just now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71316018#Comment_71316018

That needs to be part of a complaint to ISPA, again. They can't impose sanctions on WHOPLA but they have stated that they will be reporting about this in their Annual Report, so they need to see evidence from consumers (even those who won) that WHOPLA were not acting as they should and have been allowing PPCs a second crack at evidence.

The decision should always have been made based on the evidence already available! You should send that PDF letter to ISPA as proof that WHOPLA were spoon-feeding PPCs on what jigsaw piece was missing from their evidence but not asking the consumer for the same sort of evidence of signs from their point of view.

Letting the PPC have a chance a year later to fill in their evidence omissions - even telling them in bullet points, what to provide - is a scandal. You might want to contact the ParkingPrankster who might be interested in blogging about this and showing the letter to a wider audience:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/wright-hassall-right-shambles.html

Well done though!!

henrik777

ami66 wrote: »

Ok update time

Received a letter from Wright Hassall on12th April dated 7th April asking me for any other points to be raised within 7 days of date of letter.

Sent rapidly put together email reiterating my previous points and also in regard to point 1 - No genuine pre-estimate of loss stated that the Supreme Court did not suggest that the Beavis decision was in any way applicable to every car park and parking ‘charge’ situation. On Nov 4th they tweeted that the judgment was taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices'.

Smart Parking Ltd has not attempted to relate their case to that of ParkingEye v Beavis, and to therefore justify their charge. It is their responsibility to make their case. As they have not, there is therefore nothing for me to rebut. I content it is not the assessors’ job to make the case on behalf of the operator.

Heard nothing not even an acknowledgement of my email until 7th Sept when I received an email with an attached letter requesting more evidence.

whopla-adjournment-red.pdf

As I was on holiday I missed most of the week and at first panicked then calmed and thought who are they actually asking to provide that evidence? Am I being really dense or is it not very clear?

Decided not to reply as it seemed to aimed at Smart Parking not me.

Anyways got another email today – appeal ALLOWED !

DELETED

Thanks for everyone who contributes so much, yes it takes a lot of reading and digesting but all the information need to beat these companies is here in numerous posts and stickies!

If you click on the whopla result link it shows your details in the text.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That needs to be part of a complaint to ISPA, again. They can't impose sanctions on WHOPLA but they have stated that they will be reporting about this in their Annual Report, so they need to see evidence from consumers (even those who won) that WHOPLA were not acting as they should and have been allowing PPCs a second crack at evidence.

The ISPA are not interested
http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Statement%20regarding%20PoPLA%20complaints%20being%20administered%20by%20Wright%20Hassall.pdf

Most likely a gagging order from the BPA

Nicola Mullany has no power as chairman of the ISPA and best SHE looks for another job before her CV shows you was employed in a scammers industry.

The BPA, are on the journey to the BIG BUST

Coupon-mad

We know, but ISPA have said they WILL use complaints about WHOPLA when publishing their report on POPLA, so people do need to alert ISPA to these dodgy practices, to inform ISPA fully about what is happening. ISPA have no remit but their report should be interesting.