Smart Parking Ltd - Did not receive Notice to Keeper in time

ollegrove

Hi folks! Bit of a long shot...

I received a debt collection letter for unpaid PCN from Debt Recovery Plus. The company who issued it was Smart Parking Ltd. I did not receive a notice to keeper originally so did not know I had a PCN until the letter came through from DRP.

Just spoken to DRP on the phone who said that as I hadn't updated my V5, they were asked to get involved and used the DVLA to get my current address off my driving licence, it's my fault and I'm now past the appeals date so cannot contest it.

I argued that I have still never seen proof that I overstayed the 2 hours in the free car park and she has sent me proof over email (I was 16 mins over! :mad: ). I then contested that none of the signs in the car park have the BPA logo on and that the terms and conditions are far too small to read and are set back from the road so they cannot be read clearly. Again, the lady said the only choice is for me to choose to go to court, or pay the fine of £160 within 14 days!

Am I pretty scuppered?

nosferatu1001

Well, you made a key mistake. Never ever call a debt collector

You cannot "choose to go to court". DRP cannot take you to court - as you would know, if you have read the newbies thread? -= and they have no incentive to recommend court. They dont get paid if that happens.

Id suggest ignoring, or trying to get the landowner to cancel.

Guys_Dad

But only ignore until real court papers arrive. And try to keep an eye on any correspondence from the court or the PPC going to your old address (in case the debt collector hasn't notified the PPC of your new address. )

In fact, I would put an appeal into the PPC direct informing them of your new address in writing.

nosferatu1001

I wouldnt appeal. Jsut deny the debt, and state that your new address is: and is to be used for any future correspondence.
You will use the letter to hold them liable for any costs associated if they use your old address.

fisherjim

Oh for goodness sake the only long shot was you talking to lying muppets at Debt Recovery Plus, stop phoning them and ignore them they are lying scammers!


She was no "lady" and I'm sure she never mentioned a "fine", and the charge is not £160 that includes DRP's scam fees which you should never pay anyway.

Read the newbies thread and get clued up on the whole sorry scam.

You have passed the appeal stage now, if the landowner won't intervene it's just a waiting game to see what transpires, but out of nearly 20,000 tickets issued this year Not So Smart have been to court one time, so work out the odds.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Smart_Parking.html

ollegrove

Rookie error! I've read the newbies post but as I've missed the appeals deadline, I wasn't sure of the best course of action.
I will write to the PPC with the same letter I've sent to them on paper.

What do I do if actual court papers arrive?

nosferatu1001

Well, you then have an actual claim to defend, obviously. You read up on what to do in...yes, you guessed it, the newbies thread.

Fruitcake

ollegrove wrote: »

Rookie error! I've read the newbies post but as I've missed the appeals deadline, I wasn't sure of the best course of action.
I will write to the PPC with the same letter I've sent to them on paper.

What do I do if actual court papers arrive?

I wouldn't write anything yourself. If you are going to send a late appeal then use the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES and just add that you are treating the letter from DRP as the NTK.

ollegrove

Ok, so for clarity, I am sending this through on the appeals page of Smart Parking....

"Dear sirs,

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. The terms and conditions are barely readable from the footpath beneath them, let alone as the driver enters the car park from the road.
Furthermore, according to section 18.8 in the BPA Code of Practice, it states that “You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly”.
This is not the case with any signage at Brook Retail Park and is a contradiction to this rule.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Through an error, the registered address for this vehicle was not updated to include the current address and so I did not, and still have, not received the original Notice to Keeper in order to contest the original charge.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach.
Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA.
You have instructed a debt collection agency to collect an unpaid charge from me, who have also obtained my details as from the DVLA without prior consent or knowledge.
Once again, without first receiving the original Notice to Keeper, caused a great deal of shock and distress to myself.
The signage I believe to be a contradiction of section 18.8 of the BPA Code of Practice, coupled with the lack of clear terms and conditions signage and the lack of original Notice to Keeper, I am contesting this PCN on those grounds.
The space the car was parked in on the day was not causing obstruction or offence. Neither was it in a position where it could have been taking up a Parent/Child or Disabled space. I regularly use this car park for use of the shops there, such as Lidl and Pets At Home (whom I also use as my vet). If this PCN is upheld, I will no longer use these businesses out of principle.
You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,"



Is this fair? I know they're going to write back saying I'm over the appeal limit but worth a shot right?

Fruitcake

ollegrove wrote: »

Ok, so for clarity, I am sending this through on the appeals page of Smart Parking....

"Dear sirs,

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. The terms and conditions are barely readable from the footpath beneath them, let alone as the driver enters the car park from the road.
Furthermore, according to section 18.8 in the BPA Code of Practice, it states that “You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly”.
This is not the case with any signage at Brook Retail Park and is a contradiction to this rule.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Through an error, the registered address for this vehicle was not updated to include the current address and so I did not, and still have, not received the original Notice to Keeper in order to contest the original charge.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach.
Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA.
You have instructed a debt collection agency to collect an unpaid charge from me, who have also obtained my details as from the DVLA without prior consent or knowledge.
Once again, without first receiving the original Notice to Keeper, caused a great deal of shock and distress to myself.
The signage I believe to be a contradiction of section 18.8 of the BPA Code of Practice, coupled with the lack of clear terms and conditions signage and the lack of original Notice to Keeper, I am contesting this PCN on those grounds.
The space the car was parked in on the day was not causing obstruction or offence. Neither was it in a position where it could have been taking up a Parent/Child or Disabled space. I regularly use this car park for use of the shops there, such as Lidl and Pets At Home (whom I also use as my vet). If this PCN is upheld, I will no longer use these businesses out of principle.
You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,"



Is this fair? I know they're going to write back saying I'm over the appeal limit but worth a shot right?

As I said in my previous post, I would send the BPA template in blue with the addition I mentioned and not make anything up yourself. This is especially important of you didn't reveal the driver's identity beforehand.

Whatever you decide to do, please complain to your MP.

What happened when you complained to the landowner and the manager of the retail outlets you visited?

ollegrove

I will C&P the blue BPA text into that and send it then, thanks!

I haven't complained to the retail outlets just yet. Waiting for the PPC to come back (if they do).