Urgent help for checking SMART POPLA Appeal letter

Coupon-mad

Where's their evidence of landowner contract?

Your point #3, have they shown a contract? If not, they WILL lose on that basis and that's what you point out as your comments in the POPLA box.

If they have shown a landowner contract, show us, by changing the http to hxxp for any link.



Re this, NO, is the answer, don't argue this, it would be hopeless at POPLA:

... 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?

Shil

here is what i would like to reply -is it ok ?

These are my comments on the evidence presented to POPLA by Smart Parking for the case xxxxxxxxxxxx

The appellant wrote in a fair and reasonable manner in the internal appeal to SMART parking stating !!!8220;I!!!8221; as they were the person the PCN was posted to and it was not as an admission of being the driver.The driver gave them proof of payment and so the appellant felt it was a reasonable and straight forward case to reply on behalf of the driver but in first person as the person addressed as keeper of the vehicle. The word !!!8216;I!!!8217; should not be assumed to be mean !!!8220;driver!!!8221;. As the appellant, i wrote in good faith as the named keeper of the car where i had been given proof of ticket purchased for that vehicle and which SMART agreed in their response, was found on their systems to have been paid (as evidenced by their payment record system). If it is legally assumed (proven where and by whom?) that the word !!!8220;I!!!8221; will be construed as meaning !!!8220;driver!!!8221; then this was not made clear at any point in the PCN or the internal appeal process (where the option to state whether you were the driver or not was not given therefore was misleading in itself) and would suggest that the appellant was tricked into believing that replying as the appellant using the word !!!8220;i!!!8221; is legally taken to mean that they are therefore the driver. It is unfair to the lay person with no understanding of the legal arguments for terminology where it is not made clear prior to writing an appeal that the word !!!8220;I!!!8221; in this case would be used against them for replying as the keeper in explaining the circumstances in which the ticket was purchased as told to them by the driver. The appellant was only made aware of the importance of stating they are not the driver when their reasonable appeal was rejected by Smart and as such they looked to appeal to POPLA where they are given the option to select whether they are the driver. It is not fair or reasonable to use one appeal process that does not give me option or make it clear the importance or clarifying stating !!!8220;i!!!8221; to mean the driver and then penalise the appellant for taking this option to clear up the issue of whether they are indeed the driver when it is offered to them on the POPLA Appeal website.

In their response Smart Parking acknowledged that a 2 hour ticket was paid for !!!8220;xxxxx!!!8221; and this did not match on the ANPR for the vehicle !!!8220;xxxxxx!!!8221; which was recorded for a total duration of 89 minutes by their system. They also admit in their response that the !!!8220;payment machines do not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not!!!8221;. I would then suggest that whilst this may result in an PCN because a machine cannot make the connection between the paid ticket and the vehicle registration captured on ANPR, that this is precisely what their internal appeal process and subsequently POPLA, should the internal appeal fail, look to ascertain, as is the case here. The internal appeal process would suggest that a human being would apply reasonableness and fairness to the situation where initially only the ANPR system was used to ascertain a failure to pay for this vehicle. Smart also present a list of other vehicles on their system verification for ticket paid, that do not match the paid ticket registration entered by any other vehicle at that time, on that date, except as the closest match to the appellants vehicle captured on ANPR. As such it would be easy in an internal appeal process using human assessment and in applying the code of practice applicable to fairness to connect the ticket paid for xxxxx to the vehicle registration captured by the ANPR for xxxxxxxx.

Smart commented that their signage states !!!8220;it is the responsibility of the motorist to correctly enter their VRN!!!8221;. No where on the signage evidenced by Smart as the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; is there any wording stating !!!8220;it is the responsibility of the motorist to correctly enter their VRN!!!8221;. The !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; signage (as it is referred to by SMART) states that !!!8220;Parking is subject to the terms and conditions that apply which are set out within this notice (the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221;). By entering, parking, waiting, otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221;) and are authorised to park only if you follow these correctly, including making payments where directed, entering your registration details via the payment and/or permit systems.!!!8221; The !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; goes on to state that !!!8220;This Parking contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties!!!8221;. No other mention does the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; contain as its terms & conditions the sentence !!!8220;it is the responsibility of the motorist to correctly enter their VRN!!!8221; and !!!8220;Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £100.00!!!8221;. These two sentences do not form part of the terms and conditions as stated in the !!!8220;Parking Contract!!!8221; and so SMART have failed to prove that they correctly issued a PCN on grounds of failure to adhere to the Terms and Conditions.

Smart also replied !!!8220;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; . No where on these instructions does it prompt the motorist to check the car registration details. No where do the instructions clearly state to enter correct and full car registration (but they have made the effort to state check tariffs and insert correct money). No where do the instructions show that the motorist is given the opportunity to check their car registration number or prompted to check it is correct. As Smart readily have explained the importance of correct VNR details required to match with their ANPR system, then i strongly suggest that POPLA would agree with the appellant that it is the responsibly of the PPC to ensure that this information is correctly and clearly gathered by their own operating system, in order to mitigate VRN errors which their ANPR system will fail to account for. It is simply not enough for Smart to suggest that it is the responsibility of the motorists to enter it correctly and pay again if they !!!8220;happen!!!8221; to notice that the VRN was printed incorrectly. In order to ensure that they can correctly and fairly issue a PCN, Smart have failed to prove that the parking contract signage explains the importance of this and yet the parking contract states it contains the !!!8220;entire agreement between the party!!!8221; as the !!!8220;terms and conditions set out with this notice (the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221;)!!!8221;. It is a stronger case to say that it is vitally important that Smart take all responsible steps to clearly notify this to the motorist in the parking contract itself and then to ably capture this important information on their own operating systems. It is my suggestion that this is not stated anywhere either in the parking contract or on any other signage as directly forming part of the terms and conditions referred to in the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; as evidenced by their own photographs.

The sentence !!!8220;it is the responsibility of the motorist to correctly enter their VRN!!!8221; is seen on the signage displaying the Parking Tariffs and does not form part of the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; as the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; clearly states its terms and conditions as !!!8220;!!!8230;.including making payments where directed!!!8221;. The !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; does not state that the terms and conditions include correctly entering the VRN only !!!8220;making payments where directed!!!8221; in reference to the tariffs signage. It only refers to the VRN as part of the !!!8220;payment and/or permit systems!!!8221; and as already described by Smart, their payment system does not direct the motorist to enter the correct vehicle registration details, neither does it or the tariff signage make the connection that failure to enter the correct VRN !!!8220;will result in a parking charge of £100.00!!!8221;. These sentences, to which Smart have referred to as the basis for issuing their PCN, are seen only on the bottom of the tariffs logo as separate symbols of information and are not referenced by the parking contract and does not state anywhere as part of the Terms and conditions for the entering of information. The parking contract refers to information gathering and usage only relating to the ANPR system not the VRN information as entered by the motorist. It is therefore not proven by Smart that this particular failure to record a correct and full VRN will directly result in a failure to meet the terms and conditions and result in a parking charge.
In referencing these two sentences Smart have attempted to suggest that the two are linked and clearly connected as relating and resulting one from the other. This is not proven by the tariffs signage as the two are simply two separate icon squares of information at the bottom of the tariffs signage and are not two sentences linked one after the other suggesting a direct correlation.

It is a unfair penalty to suggest in their evidence that the !!!8220;driver!!!8221; or appellant of the vehicle, should have purchased a second ticket on noticing the initial error on car registration. Why? There is no refund process made available either by information provided on the ticket machine, on signage anywhere on the premises or even in Smart!!!8217;s internal appeal process. As such Smart suggesting that the appellant should have purchased a second ticket is like !!!8220;double dipping!!!8221; and allows such dubious practice as making fair paying customers pay twice for a service that has already been paid for whilst providing no information or clear signage on how to refund the incorrect payment errors. Smart seem to suggest it as the correct alternative action the motorist should have taken indicating that they expect motorists to be unfairly penalised by paying twice for the parking then what they themselves have advertised as the payable tariff on their tariffs signage. As such it is just as reasonable for me to then suggest a fair action for the motorist was to appeal showing proof of the parking ticket purchased having no other recourse to correct or explain or refund this error any other way. To suggest that an alternative was available to the customer would also indicate that not taking that alternative action meant a PCN could be issued and upheld regardless of an appeal and suggest that paid tickets proving fair and reasonable attempt to pay the parking is not part of the business practice of Smart and that their intention is to unfairly doubly penalise the motorists by collecting the paid ticket fare, issuing an exorbitant penalty parking charge and denying all appeals on reasonable proof of payment.

Smart replied that “the owners allow access to the public on condition that they park according to the advertised terms and conditions” and that “The terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking Limited as an agent enforces these.”. As argues in point 3 of my POPLA Appeal, Smart have made this bold statement without a single evidence produced as proof of this and as such have failed to demonstrate their statements to be true or counter my claims as made in point 3 of my appeal.

Shil

oh thanks Coupon-mad i only just posted above and then saw your reply. I will add the landowner contract bit. I think my comments are to detailed -you've stated on previous threads to keep it succinct. I'm not sure how to say what i want by editing my post -so i'll edit my post above to add landowner contract and then perhaps i could have help on reducing its length?! Should i even respond to the "i" comment being taken to mean driver?

KeithP

That's far too long.

You will find that the PoPLA response box allows 2000 characters.

You will need to be much more concise.

Search the forum for bullet points, choose show posts, and the first post (after this one), and subsequent posts on that thread, will give you guidance on that.

Coupon-mad

These are my comments on the evidence presented to POPLA by Smart Parking for the case xxxxxxxxxxxx

Smart have failed to provide a copy of any landowner contract, therefore POPLA will not be able to conclude that the PCN was properly given.

the end (if they really have attached nothing about that).

Shil

hello,

Thank you Coupon-mad for your post above. I feel nervous and cavalier to response with such a short comment and an earlier post suggested i bullet point my other comments - i have therefore done both (!) and edited and vastly reduced my comments into shorter bullet points. Please see below -will this suffice? Have i said anything i absolutely should delete? Is it still too long?

These are my comments on the evidence presented to POPLA by Smart Parking for the case xxxxxxxxxxxx

Smart Parking responded that !!!8220;the owners allow access to the public on condition that they park according to the advertised terms and conditions!!!8221; and that !!!8220;The terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking Limited as an agent enforces these!!!8221;. In reference to point 3 of my POPLA Appeal, Smart have made these comments with no evidence produced by failing to provide a copy of any landowner contract, therefore POPLA will not be able to conclude that the PCN was properly given.


Below are my comments on the evidence that was supplied.


!!!9642; Smart Parking acknowledged that a 2 hour ticket was paid for !!!8220;xxxxx!!!8221; and this did not match on the ANPR for the vehicle !!!8220;xxxxxx!!!8221; which was recorded for a total duration of 89 minutes. Smart also admit that the !!!8220;payment machines do not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not!!!8221;. Whilst their ANPR machine cannot make the connection between the paid ticket and the vehicle registration on ANPR, the internal appeal process would suggest that a human being would apply reasonableness and fairness to the situation, otherwise it does not seem that the internal appeal process was a fair attempt to ascertain whether a PCN was justified in that situation as Smart signage does not indicate anywhere that failure to enter full VRN results in PCN.

!!!9642; Smart comment that their signage shows !!!8220;it is the responsibility of the motorist to correctly enter their VRN!!!8221;. No where on the signage evidenced by Smart as the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; is there any such wording. The !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; does state that !!!8220;This Parking contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties!!!8221;. That sentence Smart quoted does not form part of the terms and conditions as stated in the !!!8220;Parking Contract!!!8221;. SMART have failed to prove that they have correctly issued a PCN on grounds of failure to adhere to the Terms and Conditions.

!!!9642; The Parking Tariffs signage does not form part of the !!!8220;parking contract!!!8221; except for where (in the parking contract) it states in its terms and conditions !!!8220;!!!8230;.including making payments where directed!!!8221; and only refers to the VRN as part of the !!!8220;payment and/or permit systems!!!8221;. As already described by Smart, their payment system does not direct the motorist to enter the correct full vehicle registration (see next comment). neither does it make the connection that failure to enter the full correct VRN !!!8220;will result in a parking charge of £100.00!!!8221; anywhere on the system. The parking contract does not make it clear in its wording anywhere that all other signs and their entire contents form part of the terms & conditions.

!!!9642; Smart replied !!!8220;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; . No where on these instructions does it prompt the motorist to enter correct and full car registration (but they have made the effort to state check tariffs and insert correct money). As Smart have readily explained the importance of correct full VNR details required to match with their ANPR system, then it is the responsibility of Smart to ensure that this information is given at the point where it is requested. It is not enough for Smart to suggest that it is the responsibility of the motorists to enter it correctly on signage that does not form part of or is even referenced by the parking contract, which they have quoted in their response. Smart have failed to prove that the parking contract signage displaying the Terms and Conditions explains that only correct and full VRN is part of Smart!!!8217;s terms and conditions as displayed on other signage elsewhere in the car park.

!!!9642; Smart suggested that the motorist should have purchased a second ticket on noticing the initial error on car registration. This !!!8220;double dipping!!!8221; allows such dubious practice as making fair paying customers pay twice for a service that has already been paid for. Motorists would then be unfairly penalised by paying twice for the same service and double what Smart themselves advertise as the correct tariff for that period. Furthermore as there is no clear signage making the connection that failure to enter full VRN results in a PCN, then there is no reason for any motorists to believe they would have had to purchase another ticket with the full correct registration.

Then End


i think need to submit today or tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

That will not fit in the comments box - only 2000 characters (not even words) is tiny!

None of the above will help you, it's nothing that POPLA can consider. Delete it all.

Only have a short comment about no landowner authority (and lack of keeper liability, if you only ever appealed as keeper).

If there is no landowner authority, and your appeal demanded it, you win. End of story!

Shil

okay thank you Coupon-Mad. I will do as instructed as only put the bit about landowner authority as in the internal appeal my relative wrote stating "I" so the keeper appellant thing isn't applicable here i don't think (based on other threads i have read).

Shil

ok just for anyone else that reads this thread i have submitted:

These are my comments on the evidence presented to POPLA by Smart Parking for the case xxxxx:

Smart Parking responded that "the owners allow access to the public on condition that they park according to the advertised terms and conditions" and that "The terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking Limited as an agent enforces these". In reference to point 3 of my POPLA Appeal, Smart Parking have failed to provide a copy of any landowner contract, therefore POPLA will not be able to conclude that the PCN was properly given.

Matchstick11

Hi Shil,
Following with interest as I have a PCN from the exact same car park. Only on the day I was there, the machine said "not in use" for which I have a picture, but unfortunately as I had just moved and was on holiday out of the country it took me more than 28 days to respond on their online appeal system. So if it goes well with yours could I piggy back off yours?