Smart Parking PCN Matalan Wrong Reg Number

Coupon-mad

Harto wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, I think I can put something together now.

1 question I have. In POFA 2012 sch 4, it continually mentions the NTK should state "parking charges". Does this refer to the fee I now have to pay (because this is plastered all over the NTK) or the parking charge I paid in the car park under the wrong reg number.

No-one can say because it was so badly drafted. You can argue it as best suits you.

We've discussed this before and you can read it both ways - personally I think in a P&D car park it MUST be the tariff because that's the only sum which is 'unpaid by the driver' before the end of the period of parking that day.

But that's a very fine detail, really not needed; the really obvious omission is 9(2)f. No warning of keeper liability after 28 days after service of the NTK = no keeper liability then...

Harto

Hi,

I've read through POFA 2012 and intend to add the following to the start of the appeal.

1) Notice to Keeper 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.

Coupon-mad

Yep, nice work, that (added to your post #7) will be enough to kill it. Smart will throw in the towel as soon as they see they have been sussed by a keeper who they can't hold liable.

Guys_Dad

That is exactly the point I made earlier. It's no good making an accusation if you can't back it up. Now you have identified their failings that you would rely on in court.

Just one thing, though. Have you checked that each point of POFA failure you have made, which I am assuming is a cut and paste job, is actually correct in your case? If so, good to go.

Harto

POFA bit isn't cut and pasted. I went through the POFA line-by-line and compared to my NTK. I couldn't find any good examples using the search function.

Coupon-mad

I'm sure you are right, Smart parking do not use POFA wording so you will win!