Parking Charge Notice Issued by Smart Parking LTD

eggs_benedict

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this particular forum so please do enlighten me as to any etiquette I may be breaching and any suggestions on how to improve.

As the registered keeper, I have received a Parking Charge Notice (issued by Smart ParkingLtd) for an alleged incident on the 22nd November 2017 at a private car park wherein the vehicle in question was pictured entering the car park and another, seperate picture of the vehicle leaving with a difference of 16 minutes in the timestamp.

I have not been in the country since the very end of Nov 2017 and have recently been informed that this PCN was issued (within a week of the alleged offence), and consequently unknown to me (the registered keeper), as was a claims letter from DRP (issued 4th Jan 2018) asking for the princely sum of £160 with all of the regular scare tactics I.e. quoting ParkingEye vs. Beavis case.

I require the case-by-case knowledge that I know some forum-users have in abundance to help me through this as I have had no chance to go through the POPLA route (due to being abroad etc.).

Also, the surname on the PCN is spelt incorrectly if that can add any weight to the argument.

With Great Appreciation,
eggs_benedict

claxtome

Unfortunately you have missed you chance of appealing both initial and 2nd stage POPLA.

You are now at the debt collector stage (nothing to worry about) where you just ignore the letters until you get a Letter Before Claim (LBC) from a solicitor.
Newbie sticky post #4 gives more details.

Come back here when you get a LBC.

To see your how often Smart take people to court look at this:
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Smart_Parking.html

eggs_benedict

Thank you very much for your contribution. I have recently checked the website and the ticket/ court case ratio per year, whilst being extremely low for the previous years, has been on the rise and after only 10 days of 2018 there has been 3 court cases already. Do you think this means Smart Parking Ltd are becoming more aggressive with their debt-collection protocol?

Again, thank you very much for your input and I will post any updates shall the letter arrive.

pappa_golf

I think smart parkings head office (in Australia) need , very quickly to see a return on there UK investment

however when they loose a large propotion of POPLa appeals and court claims , which causes more outlay and lower monies coming in , then australia may pull the plug

"Part of a group listed on the Australian small companies stock exchange. Known to be accident prone. A number of articles exist to show the staff have been engaged in fraud and embezzlement - likely due to poor internal controls. Highly loss-making and would be bankrupt were it not for its shareholders. How long their patience will last in unknown. "

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203684322-Smart-Parking-Ltd

nosferatu1001

3 cases listed in 2018, will have been from 2017 back end of the year.

pappa_golf

do we know who acting solisitors are?

Umkomaas

after only 10 days of 2018 there has been 3 court cases already. Do you think this means Smart Parking Ltd are becoming more aggressive with their debt-collection protocol?

So in the past 3 years they have issued pushing on towards one million tickets and have progressed 21 cases to court. 1,000,000 : 21 look odds that I could easily cope with!

While we don’t deal with every PPC court case, we do see a good cross section. A few months ago we had a couple of Smart cases where posters had received formal court claims. We helped with the defence and as soon as Smart saw that there was a decent defence and, importantly, they saw that the forum was involved, they immediately withdrew their case - says it all really.

I would hazard a guess that a good number of the 21 cases are likely default judgments, where Smart issue the initial claim via MCOL, with no subsequent response from the motorist. Thereafter it is almost totally automatic, all done on paper, no need for Smart to turn up in court - judgment made in their favour. In fact we’ve never heard of any case where Smart have actually darkened the door of any courtroom.

eggs_benedict

Wow, in those terms it actually does seem a much better prospect and is very promising information thank you for shedding some light on that! I will keep the thread updated on any developments positive or otherwise. Thanks once again everyone for all of your knowledge!

pappa_golf

Umkomaas wrote: »

So in the past 3 years they have issued pushing on towards one million tickets and have progressed 21 cases to court. 1,000,000 : 21 look odds that I could easily cope with!

While we don’t deal with every PPC court case, we do see a good cross section. A few months ago we had a couple of Smart cases where posters had received formal court claims. We helped with the defence and as soon as Smart saw that there was a decent defence and, importantly, they saw that the forum was involved, they immediately withdrew their case - says it all really.

I would hazard a guess that a good number of the 21 cases are likely default judgments, where Smart issue the initial claim via MCOL, with no subsequent response from the motorist. Thereafter it is almost totally automatic, all done on paper, no need for Smart to turn up in court - judgment made in their favour. In fact we’ve never heard of any case where Smart have actually darkened the door of any courtroom.

if default then they were not actual court cases and would not show on that list

Coupon-mad

I've almost never seen Smart Parking mentioned as litigious. I would NOT worry!

Keepers can't be held liable by this company due to the NTKs they send (non-POFA wording) so never say who was driving and the keeper has a full defence.

timpster

When Smart got booted off Matalan they decided to go after their Matalan issued speculative invoices more forcefully. My mum got a letter before claim off SCS law, it was robustly responded to in May 2017, we are still waiting for any type of response back.

Due to reasons like yourself smart’s self-imposed POPLA deadline was missed due to holidays and being out of the country. I drafted a response on my mums behalf to DRP and smart with a letter denying the debt and the reasons why. It didn’t stop the countless DRP begging letters or the SCS Law letter before claim but it was written for the benefit of the court regarding unreasonable costs should it have ever got that far.

The SCS Letter Before Claim did falsely claim that my mum had ignored a number of letters sent to her by their Client. Therefore it was nice to be able to put “I have responded to these letters (I have copies and proof of postage on file) disputing the debt and requiring Alternative Dispute Resolution (POPLA) to assist with any potential settlement and asking for answers to my specific questions. Your client has steadfastly refused to discuss the matter with me or answer the questions asked and passed it onto a debt collection agency. Such actions are wholly inappropriate for a disputed debt.”

I have also seen on some of the forums those who have admitted being the driver being more forcefully targeted by smart.