Smart Parking - Remained on site longer

darkcloudi

Entry Sign

Sign in the Car Park

Terms


Just wondering since the terms state parking starts on entry am I still safe? As the parking time on payment ticket differs to that of entry so one would assume the start time would be from buying the ticket or parking.

I am going to add these details to my appeal with POPLA. Should I include the photos to?

In the process of updating my letter

The_Deep

Those terms and conditions look horrific. This is a car park, not a contract to build a nuclear power station. I do not think that any reasonable man would bother to read them, ergo, imo, no contract would be formed.

Judges have ruled that parking only begins when you park.



http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

What do others think?

darkcloudi

I removed number 6, and included the extract from Kelvin Reynolds, will include the email from the Gym Manager to POPLA when I send the appeal.

Many thanks for your help on this. Hopefully the images uploaded helps others.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number![xxxxxxx]!!Vehicle registration:![xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from Smart Parking

My appeal to Smart Parking was rejected on 24th July 2017 and they gave me POPLA code![xxxxxxxxx].

The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:
1) The minimum grace periods was not allowed by the operator
2) The signage was poor and not well lit
3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate, Time on site is not parking time
4) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the POFA 2012

1.) Lack of Observation and Grace periods either side of allowed parking time
The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park for 11 minutes. British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

The driver entered the car park and took 5 minutes to locate a car parking space.

The driver paid 2 hours parking and attempted to exit the gym (Pure Gym), during the alleged incident the driver was unable to exit due to an IT glitch with the doors. The driver was unable to exit the Gym which led to the alleged overstay, this particular instance required the attention of a member of staff to let the driver out after 10 minutes due to the gym being short staffed and requiring time to exit the car park.

Evidence of this was provided to Smart Parking who responded to suggest regardless of the situation, payment should have been made for the 11 minutes overstay, knowing this was out of the drivers ability to exit the premises within a reasonable timeframe. Even if it took 6 minutes to exit the gym this is still reasonable and within BPA CoP.

Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods and account for situations like above
https://www.britishparking.co.uk
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation ...

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.!
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes 'observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors (e.g. Christmas shopper queues) and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.'

2.) Signage was poor
Signage is unlit and not clear on entry detailing the grace period and when the parking period begins.

The POPLA annual report 2016 states:

In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking
period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end
of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking
begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.!

The time of entry also differs to the time on the payment ticket so one would assume that the parking time begins from paying for the ticket and the exit time displayed is two hours after payment has been made.

It would could take up to 5-10 minutes to purchase a ticket due to having to walk to a payment machine and queue up with others to purchase a ticket. Therefore, grace period should be accounted for in this situation due to the terms contradicting with the start time of the payment ticket.

3.) ANPR system

The photograph evidence provided on the PCN are not clear detailing the date and time of the incident. The times captured do not represent parking time

BPA COP 20.5 states
When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

4.) !Non-compliant Notice to Keeper – no keeper liability established under POFA 2012.
Smart Parking have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 Act in that it failed to give the Notice to Keeper to me within the “relevant period”.!

The alleged infringement occurred on the 14th June 2017 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated 4th July 2017 which is 20 days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA.!

Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions. Paragraph 9(6) states that “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted”.

Smart Parking would have been well aware of these facts when it took the decision to send out the Notice to Keeper under PoFA. Smart Parking have misrepresented the legal position in the full knowledge that there can be no keeper liability.

I appreciate you taking the above into account during your objective considered assessment.

Regards
Sam

pappa_golf

umm




free photo hosting for ebay


you DID , plus you used the grace periods allowed by BPA code of conduct

Coupon-mad

Smart Parking would have been well aware of these facts when it took the decision to send out the Notice to Keeper under PoFA.

No, they didn't send a POFA NTK, they sent a non-POFA NTK. Their choice, they do not have to meet the 14 days or use POFA wording (so they don't, because it's easier for them not to bother) but the consequence is obviously, they then can't hold a keeper liable if no-one has admitted who was driving.

And that sign of 'terms' is atrocious. I would count the number of words and tell POPLA how small the font size is, and how many words are in that War and Peace style 'sign' that no reasonable driver is ever going to see when shopping, let alone read/understand, and be bound by afterwards. Lay it on thick, state how many words are in that awful 'sign' which is never going to meet the test of 'clear and prominent' wording of a set of parking terms.

You can't get a sign much more different from the Beavis sign. Put them side by side in your appeal!

And where are the usual templates:

'no landowner authority'

and

'the parking operator has not shown that the appellant is the person liable'

You need them too.

darkcloudi

Coupon-mad wrote: »

'the parking operator has not shown that the appellant is the person liable'

You need them too.

By me saying I was at the gym, haven't I owned up to this? Will add the others from the template. Thanks again

Redx

the fact that you were at the gym does not mean that you were the driver

my wife and I went to asda a few days ago, she drove , I was the keeper, we both were shopping , but neither ASDA nor PARKING EYE know who was driving

saying you were at the gym means nothing at all , you could have gone by bus and the other half could have been driving and met you there , or you could have gone by taxi. sometimes I have done this and met my wife at a premises or shopping centre or the doctors for example , where she has driven there and I have driven home , ergo :- who is the actual driver ?

dozens of scenarios exist , so you put them to strict PROOF that they have identified the correct person for the spurious invoice they sent

ie:- if you allege wrongdoing , putting them to strict proof , they MUST prove their case, on each and every point , otherwise they lose if you win just a single point

Coupon-mad

darkcloudi wrote: »

By me saying I was at the gym, haven't I owned up to this? Will add the others from the template. Thanks again

No. Not unless you wrote 'I parked', or if you appealed online and chose the numpty choice: 'driver'. Hope not! This is the easiest way to beat Smart Parking, to appeal as keeper.

Your appeal can say at the start, in an introduction for POPLA, that:

you are appealing as the registered keeper and authorised gym member held up for some ten minutes by faulty doors, keeping members shut in. And whilst you were an occupant of the vehicle, the actual driver of the car has never been identified and this remains the burden of the parking operator.

Geoff1963

How long does it take to read the Terms and Conditions, and is Smart Parking expecting users of the car park, to pay for the time they would have to spend, to fully understand them ? What contract begins, before the customer has read the Ts and Cs ?

The OP probably could have left the gym without the assistance of a staff member ; by smashing their way out, causing hundreds of pounds of damage, but chose to not do so. What if there had been a fire and someone less physically able was trapped ? The IT problem sounds like a reason to close the place on Health and Safety grounds.

I'd say that on finally being released from their imprisonment, the last thing on anyone's mind would be, "You know what, I'd better just go and pay for the extra time that my car was parked". Smart Parking would presumably say that if the OP had been seriously injured in the gym, the ambulance crew should have paid for some extra parking time before their vehicle could be retrieved.

pappa_golf

Geoff1963 wrote: »

How long does it take to read the Terms and Conditions, and is Smart Parking expecting users of the car park, to pay for the time they would have to spend, to fully understand them ? What contract begins, before the customer has read the Ts and Cs ?

The OP probably could have left the gym without the assistance of a staff member ; by smashing their way out, causing hundreds of pounds of damage, but chose to not do so. What if there had been a fire and someone less physically able was trapped ? The IT problem sounds like a reason to close the place on Health and Safety grounds.

I'd say that on finally being released from their imprisonment, the last thing on anyone's mind would be, "You know what, I'd better just go and pay for the extra time that my car was parked". Smart Parking would presumably say that if the OP had been seriously injured in the gym, the ambulance crew should have paid for some extra parking time before their vehicle could be retrieved.

How long does it take to read the Terms and Conditions,

according to the BPA , you are allowed 5 mins to read , digest and understand the signage

I'd say that on finally being released from their imprisonment,

a perfect use of the 10 min grace period as advised by the BPA