No longer own the car + parking ticket for 23 minutes

ileah14

Yes, I've read the Newbie Post, and yes, I am a Newbie, so much a Newbie (plus I am American only driving in the UK for 2 years), that I am getting lost in all the acronyms and jargon and foreign law concepts that I sincerely feel the need to ask about what I specifically need to do.

So I rec'd a Parking Charge Notice from Astle Retail Park dated 26/10/17 - in: 13:28:15; out: 13:51:17.
1.) can it be proved that the car even parked (23 minutes total).
- Does this mean I have the right to appeal with request of proof that I actually parked?
2.) I am the registered keeper of a different car as of 30/10/17 (no longer in possession of the car in question, if this might make any difference?)
3.) the letter mentions "reasonable cause for contacting DVLA," "proper signage," "Parking Eye v Beavis," etc. - all things I am reading in the Newbies thread that are cited for use in the appeals advise.
4.) I have no supporting documentation that the car was[n't] parked there and/or [didn't ] pay.

I considered the appeal letter templates posted here (but considering points 3 & 4 - I was worried smart parking have their bases covered and my appeal would be rejected) and also considered the request for "proof of actual parking" appeal (point 1). I have googled numerous advice sites and its is a plethora of information but significantly many solutions depending on certain caveats so I'm baffled

Please can someone help translate the legal and acronym riddled jargon and tell me simply what specifically to do to fight this.

Umkomaas

This is quite simple.

1. Send off the blue text initial appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1, unaltered. Don’t assume that Smart will have any of their bases covered. The letter has been expertly crafted.
2. Often Smart will cancel when they see that forum template
3. If they don’t cancel, they have to reject the appeal and send you a POPLA code
4. You can learn about how to win at POPLA in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. Most Smart POPLA appeals are won by motorists advised by the forum.

No longer owning the vehicle has no relevance. If you owned it on the day of the parking event, that’s all that matters.

ileah14

The letter you are advising I send as an appeal cites "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."

But The PCN letter cites Parking Eye v Beavis and says that "The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and the car park is managed by Smart Parking Ltd."
Does their letter not negate the signage appeal?

I understand the concept that the driver of the car and the keeper cannot be proven as the same and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable. Is this what the blue appeal letter is actually meant to be doing?
Thanks for the help with this

Nodding_Donkey

ileah14 wrote: »

Does their letter not negate the appeal?

No

Just send the appeal

nosferatu1001

No.
Youre not dealing with honest companies. They just say whatver they want in the hope you believe them

They are parasites.

fisherjim

I suspect this car park is anpr, so they are saying the car was on site for 23 minutes and their system says so from the anpr and will have in and out photos.

Forget about can they prove that the car parked it was there wasn't it.

Follow the advice you are being given, the acronyms are in the newbies thread.

One has to ask why didn't the driver didn't pay the 80p to park though?

ileah14

fisherjim wrote: »

I suspect this car park is anpr, so they are saying the car was on site for 23 minutes and their system says so from the anpr and will have in and out photos.

Forget about can they prove that the car parked it was there wasn't it.

Follow the advice you are being given, the acronyms are in the newbies thread.

One has to ask why didn't the driver didn't pay the 80p to park though?

Warning - Soapbox:::
-The principal that parking charges and payment machines are a hassle and outdated and not to mention a racket. If a company wants to charge for parking, they should at least put the machines at the entrance and exit to allow users to pay ad hoc and cashfree, rather than in an obscure, insecure, and unsheltered section of the parking lot where a person has to wait in line, in the rain/sleet/snow/etc., and possibly get accosted or mugged in the process because the area is unsafe, only to pay (plus most are cash only and/or "exact change required - no change given" from my experience).

- No exact change?
It's 40p for "up to an hour"; no mention of grace period from what I can see online, so if you enter and search for but do not find a suitable spot (who hasn't had to play the parking lot hide-and-seek game?), or change your mind for any number of reasons, you would technically still have to get out, go to the machine, figure the machine instructions out, fight with the machine to take your coins, wait for the printout, go back to your car, and leave, to be complete adherent to the rules. And what if the lot is at the end of an unfamiliar road the driver has accidentally entered and ends for non-public transport and the only option is to enter or get fined for being in a buses only area??
And for 23 minutes that's the equivalent of ~15p - which would have been paid had the machines been more readily and easily accessible (and safer!).
- Plus the driver entered and exited lot previously without incident <-- note the omission of "park"

Redx

you can save all those arguments for a judge , if it gets that far

you came here for advice, and you were given the correct advice, which the NEWBIES sticky thread also helps to give to newbies

we are telling it like it is, take the advice or leave it

no longer owning the vehicle was and is irrelevant

a judge may like to hear your detailed arguments, but until that time nobody else does, or cares , certainly not parking companies or popla

save your best ammunition for the court case (if it happens)

the PPC has 6 years to try an MCOL in your local county court

pappa_golf

both the BPA and IPC trade associations allow grace periods , both on entry and exit , perhaps you should read their code of conduct Docs , that are available on line , and in print and probably braille!

having read that , half your rants would not apply , 23 minutes IS over both grace period times .

ANPR (close to entrance/exit) record time ON THERE LAND and a simple set of ANPR type pictures , complete with time stamps will be produced if you did not pay to BE ON THERE LAND

fisherjim

ileah14 wrote: »

Warning - Soapbox:::
-The principal that parking charges and payment machines are a hassle and outdated and not to mention a racket. If a company wants to charge for parking, they should at least put the machines at the entrance and exit to allow users to pay ad hoc and cashfree, rather than in an obscure, insecure, and unsheltered section of the parking lot where a person has to wait in line, in the rain/sleet/snow/etc., and possibly get accosted or mugged in the process because the area is unsafe, only to pay (plus most are cash only and/or "exact change required - no change given" from my experience).

- No exact change?
It's 40p for "up to an hour"; no mention of grace period from what I can see online, so if you enter and search for but do not find a suitable spot (who hasn't had to play the parking lot hide-and-seek game?), or change your mind for any number of reasons, you would technically still have to get out, go to the machine, figure the machine instructions out, fight with the machine to take your coins, wait for the printout, go back to your car, and leave, to be complete adherent to the rules. And what if the lot is at the end of an unfamiliar road the driver has accidentally entered and ends for non-public transport and the only option is to enter or get fined for being in a buses only area??
And for 23 minutes that's the equivalent of ~15p - which would have been paid had the machines been more readily and easily accessible (and safer!).
- Plus the driver entered and exited lot previously without incident <-- note the omission of "park"

Well you obviously already have all the answers and have adopted the urban myth view of parking, good luck with that I'm out!

ileah14

I was just venting. No need to take offense. I am following the forum advice and appealing with the recommended letter.