Going forward

Castle

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That will be your winning appeal point - you don't need any other as long as
(a) the PPC is not claiming to have stuck a windscreen ticket on your car and it is a charge based solely on photographic (usually ANPR) evidence

If there had been a NTD, then the NTK would have been too early to comply with paragraph 8 of POFA.

The_Deep

If they were to take this to court, they would struggle. It is a very common fault with this equipment. Read some of these

https://www.bing.com/search?q=parking+pranskster+double+dip&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=9c23d36e75a940c396e0ed92612c4be1&PC=ACTS&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=undefined&sc=0-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=9c23d36e75a940c396e0ed92612c4be1

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Loadsofchildren123

You have a common problem, which is whether to defend as keeper or driver.


If nobody can evidence you were driving, you have a keeper's defence under POFA because your NTK was delivered late.


However, you actually have a very good driver's defence: namely that you weren't there between those times. previous posts refer to you being able to prove it, but I don't see any mention that you can prove you were elsewhere (perhaps you've deleted to avoid id'ing the driver). But by claiming you were the keeper and not the driver means you can't run this defence.


Personally, if Smart is POPLA I'd defend as keeper and deny driving.


However, if POPLA isn't an option for you, or if for any reason POPLA fails, then you are in the no-man's land of waiting for Smart to issue proceedings and being chased by debt collectors. During this period and in any proceedings, I'd defend this as driver by producing evidence of where you were during the day, that you went there twice and where you were in between, plus you are aware that the NISA delivery lorry is there on Thursdays and parks in front of the camera - all of which are clear evidence that you were not parked between the hours claimed.


Turning to the evidence. If you have an iPhone and have google maps turned on, you can access the data from the relevant day to show exactly where you went and when. I don't know how to do this, but someone did explain it a few months back on another double dipping thread. I think it was Halfway who explained it. See if you can access this now and keep it for when it's needed.


If you don't have this facility, then what else do you have to prove it's a double dipping case?
Job sheets?
Boss/colleagues/friends who can make statements as to where you were?
Text messages or emails that you sent or received which show where you were (or at least that you weren't in the car park).

Umkomaas

Smart Parking are a BPA AOS Operator, so POPLA will be the second stage appeals service.

As they have failed to meet PoFA requirements for keeper liability, that's the one I'd run with. Convincing POPLA on double-dip has been difficult on a number of recent occasions.

PoFA failure is an objective position from which POPLA cannot escape. Double-dip without (or flimsy) evidence is a much more subjective issue, exposing you to the whims of former nail technicians, call centre staff or steamy prose novelist.

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

PoFA failure is an objective position from which POPLA cannot escape. Double-dip without (or flimsy) evidence is a much more subjective issue, exposing you to the whims of former nail technicians, call centre staff or steamy prose novelist.

My favourite point beautifully summarised. :beer:

We only differ in when to introduce it. I like in the appeal to the PPC whereas colleagues on here like to save it for POPLA.

But remember, it will only work as a means of cancelling Keeper Liability, so if you choose your wording badly on either the initial appeal or the POPLA appeal and in any way admit who the driver was, then it is worthless.