Smart Parking - Appeal rejected

The_Deep

it is a bad one, because you crushed your slam-dunk win 'no keeper liability' point.

Not necessarily. Although the PPC could no doubt take this as an admission of being the driver, a skilled advocate could argue that this is not the case. The person who buys the ticket can be the passenger you know.

Fruitcake

juniorelvis wrote: »

Hi Coupon-mad et al.

firstly, thanks so much for your help. I've been through the appeal again and added spme points particular to my case, talked about the lighting and the wrong registration entry a little more, could someone have a read and tell me what they think? If you put these three 'words' together and paste into your address bar you can see my PDF: goo.gl / LMDiFd

Enjoy your bank holiday
J

I'm not sure how to make that link work. Please post either the whole web link, but change http to hxxp, or upload the image to a web hosting site and post the URL here, but again change http to hxxp. Someone will then change it back to a live link.

It is not a fine so all instances of that word should be removed and replaced with charge or similar.

juniorelvis

Fruitcake wrote: »

I'm not sure how to make that link work. Please post either the whole web link, but change http to hxxp, or upload the image to a web hosting site and post the URL here, but again change http to hxxp. Someone will then change it back to a live link.

It is not a fine so all instances of that word should be removed and replaced with charge or similar.

Thanks fruitcake, I've removed references to fine. Here's the updated link: hxxps://goo.gl/LMDiFd

Coupon-mad

https://goo.gl/LMDiFd

You need to remove the random words 'POPLA CODE' in the last paragraph.

juniorelvis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

...

You need to remove the random words 'POPLA CODE' in the last paragraph.

Ah, will do! Do the other bits read OK, I was a bit dubious whether the 'onus' lies on the operator to prove the ticket wasn't paid - is that correct? I'm obviously arguing from a weak position here, not having the ticket & not knowing how incorrect the VPN I input was...

Fruitcake

You should point out that the sign facing the road would not be seen by a driver as they would be looking forwards, not sideways.

Do you have a picture of the entrance with signage? If so, is it possible that the driver could have approached from a particular direction where the signs wouldn't have been seen? If so, it would help if you could get an image of the approach from that particular direction.

If it's OK for scammers to take pics of car windscreens from a particular angle so that it appears as if a ticket or permit is missing or obscured, I see no reason why the same method should not be employed to show how a motorist could have missed signs at the entrance and in the car park if they took a particular route.

juniorelvis

OK folks, is this good to go?
hxxps://goo.gl/LMDiFd

juniorelvis

Any more tips, things to add, things to remove? Thanks again everyone: replace the xx with tt:
hxxps://goo.gl/LMDiFd

Coupon-mad

Looks good to go.

juniorelvis

OK, just an update folks. I received the following email today:

Dear ......

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ......

Smart Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

So thanks so much for your help everyone!

To help others find this thread in future:

Incorrect Registration Entered
Brunswick St. Stockton-on-Tees
Smart Parking
Appeal Rejected
POPLA
Appeal
ANPR