Some people just don't take the advice...

torontoboy45

My wife's friend landed herself a 'ticket' back in June '17.

Shopping centre car park owned by Northampton borough council and 'managed' by Smart Parking. 2hrs free. Overstayed by 30 mins. No signage issues. NTK through the post.

Her reaction was typical: confusion followed by panic by worry.

While I'm not expert, I lurk on this board quite regularly, so I felt qualified enough to explain the basics and point her in this direction.

Now this is where it gets silly. She did nothing. Squat. Zilch. Diddley. Ignored everything posted to her.

She received an LBCC from SCS on sept 29 (beating the oct 1 changes) and now she's in meltdown.

Her own inertia is not going to look good if this ever gets in front of a judge. Meanwhile, SCS has informed her that they 'do not consider this matter is suitable for ADR', which might indicate that they see this one as a slam-dunk at CC.

She's got herself into this mess - I'm guessing someone misled her into 'ignore' mode - and, frankly, I've got little sympathy for people who ask for proper advice, then blithely dispense with it. But she's my wife's friend, so I've called by to ask the crew on here what they think should be her next move.

Thanks for looking.

Redx

a rebuttal as seen in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

System

Which car park is this?

torontoboy45

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Which car park is this?

Interesting question. Is exact location important?

Half_way

the location may be important, a council car park using a private parking company can have implications that can be of use to you/your wife.
For starters not relevant land is one of many possibilities that can work in your favor

torontoboy45

The exact location: kingsthorpe shopping centre, harborough road, Northampton.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu can be trusted and knows about lots of sites. I expect he's interested because you said it's Council-owned. Council car parks cannot be operated 'as if they are private land':

http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/documents/parking/tma_warning.pdf

But the current (new pre-action Protocol) way we recommend to respond to an LBCCC is as per the NEWBIES thread post #2, where I've just added a link to Daniel san's thread and his letter he finished drafting yesterday - also in reaction to a September LBCCC - they can't get away with it that easily!

Basically the victim should write in that style, requiring all the things in the new Protocol that they are entitled to ask for, and in particular add some wording asking how on earth Smart Parking believe they can hold a keeper liable on land owned by a Council 'under statutory control' = not relevant land. And if the Claimant believes it is relevant land they must show that the Council are not the owners.

The point is, it's perfectly reasonable to ask a solicitor sending such a threatogram, to play nicely instead and put proceedings on hold and supply the required information and offer an ADR in accordance with the new Protocol, and if they don't, she'll report them to the SRA (with your help).

She should not say who was driving (as always) and should finish by saying she'll accept a POPLA code along with the information required, since POPLA is the most suitable bespoke ADR.

She would then win at POPLA as long as you trust her NOT to say who was driving in her ad-hoc words!

The_Deep

Bloody good post CM.