Appealed Rejected but liability not admitted?

techchic

Hello! Hoping someone with a bit more experience can help.

So, for some reason the first response on receipt of a PCN was to appeal to the better nature of the people operating at Smart Parking. This has been rejected (unsurprisingly) but we don't think any liability has been admitted in this case. The respondent to the PCN stated the following;

"I hope this finds you well.I have just received a PCN, however I would like to appeal as parking was paid and the ticket was displayed on the car dash board for an attendant to see. I’m sorry I have not responded sooner, but this only came to my attention today.There was some confusion with the machine and there was an error, which resulted in a ticket being paid for, however it didn’t print the whole registration. Instead, only a “w” was printed on the ticket.As this was being displayed on the car dashboard, it was marked with the correct registration manually before being shown in plain sight.I hope this helps to clear this up, and you will be able to help out as it was clearly paid in good faith,The ticket is available should this be needed for your reference."

Can anyone please help and confirm if any liability has been admitted here? In the response from Smart Parking, they have stated "you made a payment for parking" Also "after the motorist has confirmed the details they have entered are correct". But, the motorist didn't confirm they entered the details, nor did they (someone else did).

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Redx

no , liability does not seem to have been admitted

presumably they issued a popla code ?

in which case start on your POPLA appeal , as directed by post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread

do not reveal who was driving

Coupon-mad

Smart are 100% winnable by a keeper at POPLA just by using the templates and starting with:

1 - no keeper liability (spell out that the NTK is not a POFA one, you can work that out - easy!)
2 - appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable...

Then the other two template POPLA points that everyone uses, from the NEWBIES post #3.

techchic

Thanks so much for the quick reply and for pointing us in the right direction! Are the other two template points in #3 from the newbies post you refer to Signage and Landowner Authority?

Do you think it's worth mentioning the circumstance again in the appeal? i.e. ticket paid for, genuine customer (ate in restaurant). Also, free hour of parking so only overstayed by 28 minutes without paying (if the ticket was invalid).

thanks so much!

techchic

Thanks, shall be sure not to! Feeling more confident about this now.

Coupon-mad

Are the other two template points in #3 from the newbies post you refer to Signage and Landowner Authority?

Yes, good stuff, now you know!

Do you think it's worth mentioning the circumstance again in the appeal? i.e. ticket paid for, genuine customer (ate in restaurant). Also, free hour of parking so only overstayed by 28 minutes without paying (if the ticket was invalid).

NOPE absolutely NOT.

Umkomaas

I hope this finds you well

That would not be a sentiment expressed by me to any parking company. :rotfl:

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

techchic

Hi Everyone, I just wanted to update on my progress with this appeal. I decided to get in touch with my local MP for Newquay and St Austell ahead of appealing through the usual channels. I didn't think much would come of it, but I'm very happy to say Steve and Anne Double were extremely helpful and got in touch with the landowners. Following that, the PCN was cancelled! The note simply said "we have reviewed your points and cancelled the notice". Great result! Anyway, if you live in Newquay or St. Austell I can recommend getting in touch with them as well. They were happy to help and felt strongly about how detrimental this type of enforcement is to tourism and locals in the area.

The_Deep

I am sure that the PPCs are aware that MPs are breathing down their necks, and are not doing anything to upset them.

Coupon-mad

Steve Double knows all about this 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies

Look at his contributions. The Bill is progressing well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5787731

Well done on your own personal victory against the parking sharks!