Smart Parking PCN

skin1290

Hi Everyone

I received a parking ticket from Smart Parking whilst visiting Matalan. Unfortunately, I panicked at the time and didn't know what to do.

I appealed to Smart Parking, advising I parked in Matalan as I was a genuine customer showing I attended to refund an item. however I was told I would have had to pay for parking which would then be reimbursed if I was to spend £5 or more as per the signs.

I then appealed to POPLA advising the same and providing receipts, in which they have also rejected. Further to this I have also received debt collectors letters following the non-payment.

Please can someone guide me on what I can do now or what would be my best options in my scenario.

Redx

if it failed at POPLA and if MATALAN refuse to cancel the charge , there is NOTHING that you can do

if you receive an LBC or an MCOL within the next 6 years , come back (but dont come back over debt letters , IGNORE those)

so you are at an IMPASSE at the moment , STALEMATE

nothing to do

beamerguy

skin1290 wrote: »

I appealed to Smart Parking, advising I parked in Matalan as I was a genuine customer showing I attended to refund an item. however I was told I would have had to pay for parking which would then be reimbursed if I was to spend £5 or more as per the signs.

Then for you it must be >>> GOODBYE MATALAN" until they get rid of Smart
and stop holding customers in contempt
Something to point out to the MD of Matalan

Mr Jason Hargreaves Managing Director

Email barton_c@matalan.co.uk

Companies much much bigger than Matalan such as Asda have sacked Smart Parking

Coupon-mad

No-one is telling you to pay Smart Parking, by the way! They are easy to beat so far, in the odd small claim they have tried.

Why not search the forum for 'Smart defence' and you will find some posts about cases where they have discontinued (we've only seen a handful attempted, no hearings, all stayed).

Next tie, come here FIRST. Smart cases here are cancelled at first appeal, within days.

skin1290

Thanks for the advice everyone, will send an email off to Matalan's CEO, if no joy will ignore everything from there onwards until I get a LBA or small claims court letter

skin1290

Hi Everyone

Just another concern that I have is that when appealing to Smart Parking and POPLA I sent receipts of going into the store and carrying out a refund on a product and not a purchase. However, the signs state that you have to pay in advance and then obtain a refund for the parking fee if spending £5 or more.

Would I still have a leg to stand on or would Smart Parking have the upper hand?

Coupon-mad

What makes you think a customer can no longer take a product back for a refund? A driver is still a 'genuine patron' if returning a purchase, as is someone browsing. It's Smart's fault for not making the rules and refunds of parking clear on the signs.

would Smart Parking have the upper hand?

Of course not.

skin1290

Thanks for your advice, I'll keep an eye out for a small claims court letter hereon

skin1290

Hi Guys

I have just received a letter from SCS Law in which it seems to be a LBCCC, I have done some research to rebut this in terms of POFA. However, I just want to state in my original appeal to Smart Parking, It stated 'I was a customer at', 'I visited the store etc......', does that imply I was the driver although I was not.

beamerguy

skin1290 wrote: »

Hi Guys

I have just received a letter from SCS Law in which it seems to be a LBCCC, I have done some research to rebut this in terms of POFA. However, I just want to state in my original appeal to Smart Parking, It stated 'I was a customer at', 'I visited the store etc......', does that imply I was the driver although I was not.

No, a car has one drivers seat and 3-4 passenger seats or more
You are simply a customer at the store, and were not the driver

Coupon-mad

I just want to state in my original appeal to Smart Parking,

No, you do not. LBCCC stage is not a time to try to 'appeal' again. You appear to be walking into the trap, because 'being a patron of the shops' is not the way to convince the solicitors to tell their client to stop the claim. Telling them you know you can't be liable, is possibly a way to stop this.

So, you should be responding robustly about the fact the driver has never been identified, that the keeper was an occupant of the car and whilst they were genuine patrons (as proved already) in any case, as a matter of fact and law, Smart do not use the POFA so can't hold the keeper liable.

Tell them to do one, basically. No appeal.

The NEWBIES thread post #2 already shows you some robust replies to LBCCCs - and please don't write a vague 'look at me, I have no idea what I'm talking about but have copied this from a forum' one about them not following the practice direction (I hate that one, must remove it if it's still linked in the NEWBIES thread).