Urgent help for checking SMART POPLA Appeal letter

Shil

hello,
I have copied the NEWBIES template for a machine error /wrong VRN ticket for PE BUT this appeal is against SMART , FLOWERS WAY LUTON. At bottom is full letter but areas of uncertainties listed first.

1. Appealed to Smart by uploading picture of ticket, no mention of driver. SMART rejected as it is motorists responsibility to enter correct VRN (their screen wasn't working which was not explained). Appellant had "golden ticket" description from NEWBIES, the letter did arrive after 3 weeks of the date in question, does the appellant have to prove this? they haven't kept the envelope PCN was posted in. i took out mailing names to just leave it as 3rd party mailing systems (as i don't know who SMART use). Should i upload the PCN as proof?

2. no proof pursuing actual driver . do i need to upload any proof?

3. no standing authority, main argument "I do not believe that the contract allows Smart Parking to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error." Is this enough?

4.issues with one or more of the ticket machines, i explained that "driver could not be held responsible for incomplete VRN as screen was not working",see full version below.

5.breach of BOPA code of practice on ANPR - i deleted that ANPR was being used to charge driver - as there was signage explaining the use of ANPR. Is this acceptable?

6. i put as "charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis."
Is it ok to state BODMIN case as applicable in this situation as in template?

7.Signage. I failed to find any recent flowers way signage POPLA appeal threads and i assumed that i could just put the burden of proof on SMART?. can i get away with copy of template? is there a recent flowers way signage thread that i haven't found?

Thank you,below is full letter.

Appeal re POPLA code: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v Smart Parking Ltd

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver. I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1. NTK non compliant with POFA (2012)
2. Smart Parking has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
3. No standing or authority to form contract with drivers as Smart Parking have no proprietary interest in the land.
4. Issues with the ticket machines on day of question
5. Breach of BPA Codes of Practice on ANPR.
6. Charge is a penalty not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis.
7. Signage

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Smart Parking have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:- ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’ . The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 3 weeks after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that is printed on the NTK 21/12/17 (which Smart Parking never do in any case at all because they use a third party batch-mail system, Whistl or iMail or similar, which adds up to a week before a letter is posted) it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). The fact remains the letter was received in the post by the appellant more then 3 weeks later in January 2018 from the 16.12.17 parking date in question. This means that Smart Parking have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. Furthermore, it is clear that Smart Parking know this because they have failed to mention on the ‘Parking Charge Notice’ any reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA (2012) neither in the main body of text on the front letter or on the back of the pages where the keeper is directed to in order to follow their instructions for appeal or payment. The PCN also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise. Paragraph 7(2) states: ’’The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose...and the other facts that made those charges payable...’’This NTK stated that ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased ‘’or’’ the vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which is a ‘fact’). In their rejection letter Smart Parking revealed that they ”note the comments stated on appeal’ that ticket was purchased but that the ‘incorrect vehicle registration mark’ was entered on the date in question. It is an alleged ‘fact’ that the NTK failed to state when the PCN was issued that an ‘incorrect vehicle registration’ was the cause as required by paragraph 7 (2) which Smart Parking only noted later in the rejection letter. If this operator should change their story yet again for POPLA and perhaps try to show that a ‘wrong VRN’ gave rise to the charge, POPLA please note that that would prove my point that this NTK has no ‘facts’ and also fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain ‘unpaid’ by the driver. So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was - and that person was not me.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:- Understanding keeper liability “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. ''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with a similar style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3) Smart Parking Ltd has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges. I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence. I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100. I do not believe that the contract allows Smart Parking to charge paying visitors £100 for a system or keypad error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument. Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance: “The written authorisation must also set out: a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.'

4) On this day there were issues with one or more of the parking machines. The driver parked and upon trying to pay the charge, entered the correct VRN as required. The ticket machine screen was not working although the machine was still taking payments and issuing tickets. As such no visible check could be made by the driver to ensure the correct and full VRN was registered and there were no prompts or signage telling the driver what to do in the event of a machine operating failure. As such the driver made the payment knowing they had entered the correct VRN and a ticket for the correct paid time was printed. Only when the printed ticket was produced was it revealed, that the machine had not correctly printed the full VRN, missing off the first two digits. The driver contends that they typed in the full and correct VRN and it is put to SMART PARKING that it is their responsibility to ensure that machines are operating correctly and not the fault of motorists to ‘guess’ whether the VRN has been correctly entered. As is it only possible to visibly check the VRN on the screen before printing (which was not working) so i put Smart Parking to strict proof to prove that all their ticket machine were manually checked and serviced on the date in question and a regular times throughout the day, to be in full correct working condition, which they cannot be as a fact, as the driver stated the screen was not working.
.
5) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR. It is submitted that this charge was not properly given because it breaches the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is ‘appropriate’ before issuing a PCN. The payment made for the partial VRN would in fact be very easy to identify if this operator had carried out the necessary checks required in the BPA CoP, so I suggest these checks were not made and that the operator has contravened the requirements of professional diligence; a duty of consumer-facing service providers. I put this operator to strict proof that these checks were made (showing full records from that day including the VRN list of payments around the time in question) and to explain why a charge was issued when they would indisputably have identified the matching VRN bar two digits to that of the vehicle in question and no other vehicle that entered the premises at that time. The operator would have been in no doubt that the car parking was paid for, had they made the required checks. And the situation is fully within this operator’s control. As cameras are used to record number plates entering and leaving then they should be connected to the ticket machines. Ticket machines souls not be able to print a ticket without full VRN entered. As a number-plate begins to be typed, a truly ‘connected’ system would find the ANPR image or closest match in cases of incomplete VRNs and simply require the driver to confirm that this is their vehicle, and the system would show the time of arrival (all details known to the system already). To charge under these circumstances with a faulty machine, was not ‘appropriate’ or fair and contravenes the ANPR requirements of the BPA CoP.

6). The charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair under the CPUTRs. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis. I am having to guess, as the driver has informed me that the machine screen was not working properly, that the failure of the machine to generate the full VRN on the ticket caused the system to fail to record the VRN against the correct payment made at the time, similar to the Bodmin case that another PPC operator recently lost. No evidence has been produced either way by this operator as to the cause of the issue nor any consistently-stated facts that made £100 charge payable. This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no overstay and no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner. This was a simple consumer/trader transaction with a ticket for parking being purchased in good faith and produced by a machine and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position. At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment, it was held: ''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”‘’And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''...where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty...''At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine: ''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity. Clearly a charge ‘out of all proportion’ to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man. A huge charge arising under the excuse of an unexplained event such as a keypad or system error is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 supports my position that the failure in performance of the ticket machine and/or failure by the operator to diligently carry out the necessary checks to ensure charges are not issued inappropriately, is unfair and unenforceable:link as in template 2:'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair':’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations...’’''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.This case is not comparable. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 also supports my position that this commercial practice of charging for their own system failure is unfair: link of unfair commercial practices’’:3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited. (2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair. (3) A commercial practice is unfair if—(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence;and(b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer... (4) A commercial practice is unfair if—(a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5; (b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6; ‘’I have shown that Smart Parking have failed all of the above tests (my bold) which makes a charge under these circumstances prohibited and unenforceable. The Beavis case established that the penalty rule was certainly deemed ‘engaged’ in parking charge cases. Even if POPLA cannot consider consumer law (why-ever not?) then the evidence shows that this charge is the very essence of ‘unconscionable’ which was the Beavis case definition of an unrecoverable penalty.

7)The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The signs and the machine tariff board (and the small screen itself on the malfunctioning machine) were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:LINK Requirement for transparency(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer with no tariff lists which is the primary prominent information on the board. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:- LINK.The[/url] terms appear to be displayed inadequately at the machine, where only the tariffs are in comparatively large font. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording of the terms, which seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:- LINK. As evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:-LINK''When[/url] designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. However, if you...want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''...and the same chart is reproduced here:- LINK ''When[/url] designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''. ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the parking terms should have been simpler and effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear, concise and prominent in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'.I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. END

Shil

Appellant has missed 28 day appeal deadline by 3 days (incorrectly counted only weekdays!) -will try and see if verification number still active (if not will advise them to ignore debt letters and only responsible to court order if one arrives within 6 years); so any help on appeal letter would still be appreciated. Thank you.

Quentin

If you are now too late to appeal to Popla then appeal letters are now futile.

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]

Shil

thank you Quentin for your reply- i sent my appeal letter online to POPLA anyway and it submitted ok so i'll wait to see if smart/popla refuse it on grounds of too late an appeal.

thank you The Deep- my thoughts exactly. i will most certainly write to MP as this was anyway a paid ticket and incorrect VRN was a failure of their own ticket machine - as such i cannot see how it is not considered a scam that they still sent a PCN - not a case of trying to park for free but penalised for paying anyway!

i did read a thread either here or elsewhere of a pcn dismissed by smart after complaint to mp who wrote to the PPC. hopefully there is an example of a successful letter to mp somewhere as a guide . i will still post any results in order to be of help to others.

Coupon-mad

Don't worry day 31 is NOT too late, I've submitted them on day 33 before, the limit is 33 days. No-one will object.

Smart will give up as long as you never said, even in first appeal, who was driving. You win!

Shil

ok -i know having read this site before that this will likely fail but any help would be greatly appreciated on replying to the evidence proved by SMART. My relative on whose behalf i wrote the appeal to POPLA assured me they did't believe they admitted to being driver ( i spent about 3 weeks explaining to them the imp of this and that would decide my main 1 and 2 points of argument so I'm very annoyed at them !!) anyway it seems they did admit being driver and also that it was human error that reg didn't correctly print - they did not think that having provided proof of ticket that SMART would reject their internal appeal as they have successfully appealed previous tickets on similar grounds with a council owned car park!

Anyhow i have a few days left to respond. Would anyone be able to help me formulate a response for comments on evidence? can i perhaps make the case around the fact that it is clear that the ticket paid is meant for that vehicle as it matches the time and date and (bar 2 digits) the rest of the NP matches it so even if their ANPR needs full reg they should on internal appeal be able to recognise this as proof of payment even if APNR doesn't -otherwise why have an internal appeal? Thats when a human can apply common sense where a machine can't to show ok yes the vehicle did pay for 2 hours and only parked for 89minutes of that 2 hours therefore to issue a PCN is a penalty? also can we still comment on whether their T&C with the landowner allows to charge such penalties even when on internal appeal it can be seen that the parking was paid for albeit with error on the registration?

i will post up their evidence in below thread -i only have 2 days to reply now as my relative sent me the response a bit late as it went to their email.

id rather at least try and then i will go down the ignore debt collectors and try MP letter!!

Shil

Case Summary - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On the 16/12/2017 the vehicle with registration xxxxxx was captured by the cameras at FLOWERS WAY LUTON entering and exiting the car park. The car park in question is an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and Pay by Plate monitored car park. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created and sent out to the registered keeper.

Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that xxxx admitted to Smart Parking Ltd in their appeal that they were the driver on the date of contravention by stating !!!8220;I!!!8221;. However, when the Appellant appealed to POPLA they stated that they were not the driver on the date of contravention, as the Appellant accepted responsibility previously to Smart Parking Ltd, we can confirm that xxxxxxxx was the driver on the date of contravention. In the Appellants appeal to POPLA the Appellant states that they are the appellant that was named on the PCN but was not the driver.

Smart Parking Ltd would like to clarify that this Parking Charge Notice was issued for insufficient paid time. The contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an underpayment for the vehicle registration mark. As there was no payment made for vehicle registration mark xxxx, we can confirm the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued for insufficient paid time. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration mark and for the duration of their stay when using this car park.

Smart Parking Ltd acknowledge the Appellants comments. We would like to clarify that having checked our systems and the evidence provided, we can confirm that the Appellant had purchased their ticket for !!!8220;xxxxx!!!8221; and not the full and correct vehicle registration !!!8220;xxxxxxx!!!8221;, and as the vehicle remained on site for a total duration of 89 minutes, the parking charge notice has been correctly issued.

We would like to clarify that the payment machines do not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not, which is why it is important that motorists enter the full and correct VRM so the payment can be assigned to the correct vehicle. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they are purchasing the ticket for the full and correct vehicle registration.
The site in question is ANPR operated, every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. It is important that the Appellant purchases their time on site for their full and correct vehicle registration, so this can be matched up with the images taken by the ANPR cameras. As the Appellant failed to do this and remained on site for 89 minutes, the parking charge has been issued correctly.

Smart Parking Limited would like to confirm they do not have any CCTV cameras or access to CCTV cameras on site. The site is only monitored by ANPR cameras. Smart Parking Limited acknowledge the Appellants comments; however, we would like to clarify that as the signage clearly displays on site, !!!8220;Please remember your vehicle registration number must be entered in to the payment machine keypad.!!!8221;

Furthermore, Smart Parking Limited clearly display the reasons in which a parking charge notice can be issued, stating !!!8220;Motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine!!!8221; and !!!8220;
Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £100.00", Therefore, a valid ticket needed to be purchased for the full correct vehicle registration covering the full duration of their stay on site. As the motorist remained in the car park for 89 minutes the Parking charge has been correctly issued. It is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time.

It is clearly stated on the instructions on the machine !!!8220;1. Enter your car registration using the alpha numeric keyboard. 2. Check tariffs and insert correct money. 3. Press the green button for your ticket!!!8221;. Therefore, it was the Appellants responsibility to ensure they entered their full and correct vehicle registration mark and check before authorising the payment.

The payment machines are unable to determine if a motorist has entered their VRM correctly or not, therefore it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is entered correctly before authorising payment. Had the Appellant checked their ticket and acknowledged the wrong registration mark had been entered into the payment machine while they were still on site, they could have purchased another ticket for the full and correct vehicle registration mark. As the Appellant failed to do this and remained on site for 89 minutes, this confirms the parking charge notice has been issued correctly.

As shown on the evidence of the payment system we can see that a ticket was purchased for the incorrect vehicle registration !!!8220;xxxx for 89 minutes parking, however no ticket was purchased against the full and correct VRM !!!8220;xxxxxxxx!!!8221; This further confirms the parking charge was incurred by the Appellant correctly.

We would like to clarify that it is up to the motorist to take into consideration their time on site. Sufficient time is taken in to consideration for drivers to enter the car park, read the terms and conditions, and decide whether to purchase a ticket or leave the car park. The terms and conditions of the site clearly state !!!8220;By parking or remaining in this car park you agree to the terms of parking contract (if you don!!!8217;t agree to them then please leave within 10 minutes of entry).!!!8221; Additionally, had the Appellant acknowledged the signage in the car park they would have been aware of the terms and conditions of the site. The signage on site clearly states, !!!8220;Parking Tariff Applies 24 hours a day Monday-Sunday!!!8221;, !!!8220;Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine!!!8221; and !!!8220;failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in parking charge of £100!!!8221;.
The BPA Code of Practice October 2015, paragraph 19.3 states If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions. We can confirm it is clearly stated on the signage located on the site !!!8220;Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine!!!8221;, !!!8220;Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100!!!8221;.

Therefore, as the Appellant failed to purchase a valid ticket, this confirms the Appellant breached the contract and the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly as per the terms and conditions of the site. Overall as the Appellant failed to purchase a valid ticket against their full, correct vehicle registration and for the full duration of stay, this confirms the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and in accordance to the terms and conditions of the site. It is clearly stated on the signage !!!8220;Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine!!!8221; and !!!8220;failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in parking charge of £100!!!8221;. This further confirms the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and in accordance with the advertised terms and conditions.

The Appellant entered the site at 1:08:47PM and exited the site at 2:38:33PM. The Appellant!!!8217;s total duration of stay was 89 minutes. As the Appellant failed to purchase a ticket against their full, correct vehicle registration and duration of stay, the Appellant therefore failed to comply with the advertised terms and conditions and this confirms the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

It is the responsibility as a motorist to ensure that they pay for their full duration of stay and enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the payment machine. It is also the responsibility of the motorist to clearly acknowledge the signage located around the site. As there is no payment made against the Appellants VRM and therefore as per the signage, the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states !!!8220;the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.!!!8221; We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the Appellants vehicle remained on site for 89 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

There are various signs located around the site including entrance signs that states the terms and conditions of the site. The signs do state failure to comply with the advertised terms and conditions will result in a parking charge notice of £100 discounted at £60. The terms and conditions are clearly advertised stating in which circumstances a parking charge notice may be issued. Had the driver acknowledged the terms and conditions they would have been aware that a ticket needed to be purchased for their full, correct vehicle registration and full duration of stay.

The car park is private land and the owners allow access to the public on condition that they park according to the advertised terms and conditions, the signs warn that non-compliance may result in a parking charge notice. Persons entering the car park are, in effect, agreeing to the terms and conditions and if they park in breach of the terms and conditions the landowner has a right to make a charge. The terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking Limited as an agent enforces these. In the light above and evidence enclosed. Smart Parking Limited have decided to uphold the parking charge notice. Parking charge notice and any notes The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the driver due to insufficient paid time against their full, correct vehicle registration and full duration of stay, the Appellant therefore incurred a Parking Charge Notice correctly. Registered keeper details and liability trail As of 20th December 2017, DVLA confirmed that xxxxxx was the registered keeper of the vehicle. There have been no driver disputes regarding this parking charge notice.

Original representations and notice of rejection
All representation was made by the Appellant xxxxxxxxx to Smart Parking Limited and to POPLA. The Appellant!!!8217;s appeal was unsuccessful, and rejected by Smart Parking Limited on the 19th January 2018

Images and Plans There are 24 signs located around the site that inform motorists of the advertised terms and conditions. The terms and conditions clearly state !!!8220;Parking Tariff Applies!!!8221;, !!!8220;Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine!!!8221; and !!!8220;failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in parking charge of £100 discounted at £60 if paid within 14 days!!!8221;. As the Appellant failed to purchase a ticket against their full, correct vehicle registration and full duration of stay, the Appellant therefore breach the terms and conditions and incurred a Parking Charge Notice correctly, as per the signage.

Other Evidence Smart Parking Limited have enclosed the payment system confirming the driver failed to purchase a valid ticket against their vehicle registration and full duration of stay. Therefore, the PCN was issued correctly.

pictures of signage (which i can't seem to upload)

KeithP

I gave up trying to read that wall of text.
I suspect others may do too.

Please edit your post to break up that wall into paragraphs with spaces.

Help others to help you.

Fruitcake

Redact the vehicle VRN!

Break up the text with paragraphs and spaces. As Keith mentions, someone might then try to actually read it all. They won't as it currently appears.

Shil

apologies i have spaced out the reply and redact personal in fo (thank you forgot the VRN).