Smart PCN Fistral Beach wrong vrn entered

stayhappy

I completely agree but am under the impression that prior to court this will not be enough to get the charge cancelled. If possible I would rather have a successful Popla appeal than have it hanging over me. I will write to the owners/MP just to make the point.

pappa_golf

as stated c previously , the Charles wright font as used by the DLVA does not include the O symbol



neither does the UK database for car insurance (askmid)





so why , (if not acting predetary) do smart place this symbol on the display terminal

a judge would laugh when you showed the charles wright font and the above info

Umkomaas

To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by UKPC. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

As Redx points out you are quoting UKPC when, of course, it should be Smart Parking - so you need to check through the whole appeal to make sure there are no other mentions of UKPC (or any other PPC, unless you are quoting PE v Beavis).

The following comments in this section are made on the basis that you have not already revealed the driver’s identity to Smart. The letter you received from Smart is the NtK - and as it’s an ANPR capture the date by which it should be received is 14 days from the day after the parking event. So if it arrived after that date, then you should argue no Keeper liability. Even if the date is ok, you need to check the NtK against PoFA Schedule 4, para 9 to make sure all the other requirements have been met by Smart. Anything not met means you argue no Keeper liability.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

If you’ve used the wording from the template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 and you have not revealed the driver’s identity in the initial appeal, then this section is ok.

3)Pay and Display ticket purchased

A pay and Display ticket was purchased at the correct fee of £2.50 and displayed.

I think I’d copy the ticket and embed it here. I wouldn’t go into too much detail, just let POPLA see that the ticket has been purchased.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Again, if this is a direct lift from the sticky - ok to go.

5) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces .......

In this section there are too many indicators of who the driver was. Your urge to ‘tell your story’ will ruin your first 2 appeal points! ‘The Driver did this’, ‘The Driver did that’. No ‘Me, Myself or I’ should be appearing anywhere in this appeal unless it is linked directly to the keeper. Please check this appeal point very carefully and edit accordingly. Re-post it (just this section, not the whole appeal) when you’ve sorted it out.

6) The signs do not state what the ANPR system data will be used for.

7) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice Principles

These two sections can be amalgamated as they are ANPR-related. Just put them under one header. They’re a bit jumbled, I’m afraid, but I leave that to you whether you will attempt to re-order things. But don’t expect POPLA to adjudicate on this, it does however give Smart more to contend with in their response.

8) The 'ParkingEye v Beavis' case exposes this charge as unconscionable, with no overriding 'legitimate interest' to save it from offending against the penalty rule.

I would ‘promote’ this to appeal point 6, then bring your amalgamated ANPR section down to appeal point 7.

Hopefully the ‘weight’ of this appeal will discourage Smart from deploying any resources to dealing with it, and discontinue. But you must prepare yourself for it to go all the way to POPLA.

You have mentioned ‘court’ as being a concern - do not let that consume you, your chances of a small claim being issued against you by Smart can be informed from here.

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

Just 11 cases from over 800,000 tickets issued. Almost more chance of you winning the lottery.

HTH

stayhappy

Hi, thanks so much for your imput I am reposting this section as you asked. I think I have been more careful with the language now.

7) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice Principles and ANPR

Under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they:

(a) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

(b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for.

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles
21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith but had simply keyed in one wrong digit of the registration number. Replacing zero with the letter o is easily done as the font on the car registration plate is the same for both. This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that a correct VRN is an 'obligation' which runs such a risk and will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.

The fact is, a BPA AOS operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. I require that the operator provides POPLA with a copy of their policy and proof that those checks were made in this instance. Further, I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the retailer/landowner allows this unfair fining of paying customers.

If it is not in the contract it is not a contravention that can give rise to a penalty.

In their rejection letter, Smart have failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone.

This is an inappropriate parking charge which should have been cancelled on appeal. I remind Smart that operation and enforcement is not just about issuing PCNs and collecting money from hapless victims, regardless of any legitimate interest, reasonableness or appropriateness. In fact the BPA CoP mentions in the Introduction 'minimum standards' (suggesting they are set low) as well as the importance of 'acting in a professional, reasonable and diligent way' in issuing 'appropriate' parking charges:

2.6 By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which you will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with you. Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.

2.9 The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:
• designing and using signs
• using ANPR and associated systems
• appropriate parking charges.

9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go the Professional Conduct Panel.
The Charles Wright font as used by the DLVA does not include the O symbol neither does the UK database for car insurance so why do Smart place this symbol on their pay machine. An o and a zero look the same on a UK number plate so it could be said the driver entered what was on the number plate.
And in the ANPR section:

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.

To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine driver who did pay and display is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'. Their own ANPR records show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN accidentally keyed in and as evidence, I was able to produce the ticket as proof that the driver paid but made an inadvertent error with the VRN, thereby showing that THIS ticket did relate to THIS vehicle and no other in the car park.

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' so the PCN should have been cancelled. I submit that to pursue a genuine parker who paid & displayed is contrary to the wishes of the retailers/landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately refusing my appeal.
The signs do not state what the ANPR system data will be used for.

The BPA CoP contains the following in paragraph 21:

''Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

Smart Parking fail to tell drivers that the ANPR data will be compared to any VRNs input into the P&D machine and will then be used to issue 'parking charges' for any case where there is a VRN omission or error. If this vital fact had been known the driver would have thought twice before inputting the VRN in error. As the driver did NOT know this, I cannot be deemed bound by the terms.

Coupon-mad

stayhappy wrote: »

I believe I have probably admitted who was driving in the first appeal to Smart before I knew it was important. I don't know if I can then go back and use this as an appeal point. How do I appeal without explaining the circumstances of the ticket i.e. the wrong digit in vrn. Do I just admit to buying a ticket but not about the wrong vrn ?

Smart are so 'un-Smart' that I advised someone the other month to bung in the entire section about no keeper liability and the template as point #2 about 'the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable' (see NEWBIES post #3), even though the OP had already said who was driving.

Smart gave up, at the first sight of the long appeal with 4 or 5 points to it.

So throw the kitchen sink at it.


Oh, and why on earth take their view that there was even an error by you? You've protested against it by saying this but this admits fault on the driver's part - why?:

The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith but had simply keyed in one wrong digit of the registration number. Replacing zero with the letter o is easily done as the font on the car registration plate is the same for both.

I would say instead:

The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith. The correct number-plate was input, and now Smart Parking are trying to pretend that 'zero' should be 'the letter oh'. I disagree, my number-plate was input correctly and I put them to strict proof that the VRN was not matched.

The operator appears to be making up something about digits on number-plates with no evidence at all - I am the keeper and I know what my number-plate is. Even if POPLA is not minded to agree, Smart have not shown their keypad, on the machine. This would be needed in close up, to prove that they even offered two choices 'zero' as opposed to 'the letter oh' and THEN their burden remains to prove that one was wrong and one was right, in the case of my vehicle.

stayhappy

I am getting a bit confused with this section. Does this seem okay and is it appropriate in my case ?

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. l. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

Schedule 4 paragraph 7 says the NTK has to state the reason for the parking charge. It is stated in this NTK that that terms and conditions have not been met by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the carpark for longer than permitted. This is false as payment was made for the correct time the car was parked. There was no overstay in the carpark.

Coupon-mad

Same comments as this one, how come so many people focus on something minor in the NTK and miss the crashingly obvious 9(2)f 'registered keeper liability' omission?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5743717