Appeal against PCN, Smart Parking..

jugulator

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The operator doesn't get to see your final comments.

Oh, I didn't know this. But I remember reading cases where operator and the appellant exchanging arguments after argument. I wonder how this was possible? Or have the POPLA rules changed recentlY

jugulator

I have received the decision today and unfortunately, the decision was negative. It appears though that the assessor did not take into account my comments that the signage was illegible and that they did not provide any evidence of the statement that "the site went live on 23 August 2016"

Unsuccessful
Assessor NameLinda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not pay for the full time parked.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he purchased a ticket for one hour and left the site before the expiry of the ticket. He states that the ticket was valid until 15:21 and he left at 15:12. He states that there was some delay when purchasing his ticket after entering the site as he had difficulty finding a space and there was a queue at the payment machine. The appellant states that the parking system has changed recently. The appellant has provided a copy of his ticket and a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, “Parking tariff applies 24 hours a day, Monday to Sunday” and “ Payment can be made at any time throughout the duration of your stay”. Additionally, the operator offers other ways to pay for parking such as by phone and online. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The appellant does not dispute seeing the signage on his appeal to POPLA. The operator has supplied details showing the location of the signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:48 and exiting at 15:12 after a stay of one hour and 23 minutes. I note from the copy of the parking ticket the appellant has supplied, that parking was purchased at 14:21 with an expiry of 15:21. I note the appellant’s comments that he had difficulty finding a space, parking and then waiting in a queue to pay. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that operators “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. This period is allowed so that the motorist can park, examine and understand the signage and then choose if they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the site. Should they not wish to comply, then the motorist can leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. Furthermore, as stated, other methods of payment were available to pay for parking. If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the purposes of Section 13.2, we would consider this to be parking. As the appellant remained on site for 33 minutes before purchasing parking for one hour, then we would class this as parking. While I appreciate the appellant left the site before the expiry time on the ticket, ultimately he did not purchase enough parking time for the time on site. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that the site used to have a barrier system. The BPA Code of Practice under Section 18.11 states, “Where there is a material change in the terms and conditions affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The appellant states that the previous payment system was by barrier entrance. As such, there is no change to the liability to the motorist. The site is still a paid site. Furthermore, the operator has stated that the system has been in place since August 2016. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. By remaining on site for one hour and 23 minutes but only paying for one hour, he has not complied with the terms of the site. Therefore, from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

Like I said, this POPLA appeal was lost the minute you said who was driving, but never mind:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I've just edited my suggested wording to throw some doubt on that too, if they've not evidenced it, you can question the lack of evidence to support their statement.

If you lose (and you might well do) we've always seen off Smart Parking small claims without a hearing, they tend to fold when they see they haven't scared a victim into paying.

Please no updates with every tedious debt collector letter, nor worries ''shall I pay?''

No.

jugulator

Thank you for your help. I put the updates as I thought you may be interested to know. No, I will not be copying and pasting debt collectors letters.. lol. Just one clarification before I close this. I presume the next contact would be from debt collectors. Curious how far these guys will go? Never had an experience with these guys. And from my part, I just ignore their letters? And if they did end up taking this to court, would I end up paying more?
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Debt collectors send letters (that's all, no-one comes knocking) and because this isn't a debt in the real sense (under the CCA, such as a default on catalogue payments) they can't take the case to court, can't damage your credit file or do anything at all:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

Look at StaffsSW's collection of daft 'debt collector' letters:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72293259#Comment_72293259

Not to say that Smart Parking themselves might not try a small claim further down the line - they have started a few but not many in England - but every case we've seen has been discontinued when well defended (and we do defend well!). Only one small claim case (not a Smart one) was lost at a hearing in over a year here and even that's no big deal; the hearing just ends the dispute and the person who didn't win with our help, finally paid about £180, nothing terrible, no need to sit on the norty step, no CCJ even.

jugulator

Thank you! Will see what happens. Appreciate all the advice

jugulator

Hello

Just an update on this. I have been getting letter after letter from Debt Recover Plus (DRP) which I have been ignoring. Now I have received a letter from Zenith Collections, which looks different from the previous DRP one. But it looks like these guys are another debt recovery team? I wonder why they change from DRP. Just making sure that its ok to ignore this?

Many thanks

KeithP

It's a debt collector's letter. Continue ignoring.

Back in September this suggestion was made:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please no updates with every tedious debt collector letter...

Quentin

Yes . Ignore debt collectors!! See #14!(

jugulator

Hi there,
I have received the attached letter from Solicitors. Is this something we need to reply..?

You can view the letter here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3dy0jzfjec57ci7/20180217_190545.jpg?dl=0

Thanks