Smart parking POPLA response

flopsy1973

Hi, my daughter got issued with a PCN recently at retail park where she works in one of the stores. She had registered her registration number with the store in order to be able to park there during her shifts. Despite this, she received a parking charge notice of £60. We initially appealed to smart parking on their website which got declined and so we sent them a letter and rang them. From this we got referred to POPLA and since, we have appealed there. We sent evidence which included a letter written from her manager and her work contract. Smart parking has commented on the appeal on POPLA saying that she has overstayed the 3 hour limit regardless of if she works there. We are now required to comment back on their evidence. What should we now reply with in order to strengthen our argument?

Redx

you must go through their evidence pack and refute and rebut all the mistakes you find , like contract , signage , POFA2012 compliance , BPA CoP issues etc



you can look at recent popla rebuttals on here for inspiration, but bear in mind to keep it short as the portal only allows 2000 characters

Umkomaas

In addition to dealing with the POPLA side of this, your daughter should get on to her store manager and get him to tell Smart to cancel this. If it's not the store which contracted Smart, but a Managing Agent which manages the site, the store manager should put pressure on them.

Appalling situation where employees working an 8 hour shift are restricted to 3 hours of parking. Commerce cannot possibly continue on this basis.

I don't know what your POPLA appeal contained, but as you had no advice from the forum, I worry about the outcome. POPLA won't care about - possibly not even understand or consider - the idiotic situation that Smart are perpetrating here.

flopsy1973

So the fact that she gave her reg no in to the store and they have some agreement with agent I presume? is not enough of argument??, how will we know about the contract and various other things mentioned in the posts. Is it a good idea to post the evidence from SMART on here ? it goes on about how you agree to the terms when you enter the car park and how she overstayed the agreed time limit so they believe the PCN is rightly issued
thanks

flopsy1973

So the fact that she gave her reg no in to the store and they have some agreement with agent I presume? is not enough of argument??, how will we know about the contract and various other things mentioned in the posts. Is it a good idea to post the evidence from SMART on here ? it goes on about how you agree to the terms when you enter the car park and how she overstayed the agreed time limit so they believe the PCN is rightly issued

Many thanks for your help[/QUOTE]

Coupon-mad

I would look at their evidence and pull it apart. She has a short window to make comments on the evidence.

Did your POPLA appeal have the usual stuff about 'no landowner authority' or did you write it yourselves before you came here? I ssume the latter, from what you've written above. If you had used the templates here they would have cancelled weeks ago.

You are now in a more difficult situation if you only wrote an appeal about what happened. If you'd thrown in 'no landowner authority' you could have pointed out now that the contract doesn't allow them to fine staff (probably not). If you didn't use that as an appeal point, you can't add it now.

All you can do is point to the signs and anything that makes it clear the terms are aimed at shoppers only, and/or say Smart have shown no evidence that they have the right to overrule the leaseholder/tenant retail stores, within their contract, and fine staff members who cannot possibly be assumed to be limited to 3 hours parking, given that the shops are open from xxam till xxpm and shifts last 12 (or whatever) hours.

She should NEVER have said who was driving! Hope she knows that for next time, and to advise any colleagues or shoppers similarly targeted by this scam. Smart are sooooo very easy to beat if you know how (NEWBIES thread version of appeal, then looong POPLA appeal as seen here day in day out).

Hope your version works - please show us your bullet point 'comments' BEFORE she submits them to POPLA over the weekend, she only has six days (not seven, honestly) from when the evidence was viewable.

flopsy1973

ok thanks for all that. why cant we use the landowner bit in the appeal now?
also what do i need to be looking for on the signs in the car park is it worth posting their evidence on here for pointers regarding what we can base our comments on ?

KeithP

why cant we use the landowner bit in the appeal now?

You cannot introduce new evidence at this stage.

As said, you must pull their evidence apart.

If they have not challenged all of your appeal points, then make sure you point out those they missed too.

You have less than four days left to do so.
If you miss this opportunity, you have up to six years of uncertainty ahead.

flopsy1973

Below is SMARTs evidence, so anything you guys can pick out of it so i can reply to POPLA. I have been to the car park to take some photos of signage today and yes there is signage at entrance and around car park high up in small writing. The signage says it is a customer car park, but she was a employee with permission to park there does that mean anything??? she has been parking there since and had no more PCN so they obviously do have agreement with store.
Thanks



On the xxxxx the vehicle with registration xxxxx was captured by the cameras at YSTWYTH RETAIL PARK, entering and exiting the car park.
The car park in question is an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system 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. If a vehicle overstays the maximum stay period, a Parking Charge Notice will be created should the registration not be on any authorisation list and sent out to the registered keeper.
In the Appellants appeal to POPLA the Appellant states that they are appealing against the parking ticket as it was not issued correctly in the first place, they had registered their vehicle under the agreement that xxxxxxxx have with Smart Parking whereby their employees are able to park on such car parks, they are an employee at xxxxxxx and hence, having registered their vehicle registration number before this PCN was issued the vehicle was not improperly parked. The Appellant states they are an employee in xxxxxxxx which is situated on Ystwyth Retail Park, they had registered their vehicle registration number with the company before this PCN was issued, they are not liable for this fine as xxxxxxxxx has a contract with Smart Parking where their employees are legally allowed to park on such car parks, therefore, having registered their vehicle under this agreement they firmly believe that the vehicle was not improperly parked and that they are not accountable for this parking charge.
Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that the contravention in question is in regard to overstaying the maximum stay period. As stated on the signs in the car park there is a maximum stay period of 3 hours (180 minutes). As the Appellants vehicle remained on site for xxx minutes and failed to comply with the advertised terms and conditions, therefore as per the signage, the Appellant incurred the Parking Charge Notice correctly. The Terms and Conditions of the car park are clearly advertised around the site and must be adhered to by all drivers.
Smart Parking limited acknowledge the Appellants personal circumstances and the events that occurred on the date of contravention and we would like to clarify that the terms and conditions still needed to be adhered to on the date of contravention. We would like to confirm that we have received no correspondence from the centre in regard to vehicle registration xxxxxx being exempt from the parking restrictions on the date of contravention and the Appellant remained on site for xxx minutes, the parking charge has been correctly issued.
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 adhere to the maximum stay so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact remain on site for adequate or inadequate time. We would like to make the Appellant aware that the parking restrictions on site apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and therefore, the maximum stay of 3 hours should have been adhered to. Therefore, the parking charge has been correctly issued.
Smart Parking Ltd acknowledge the Appellants personal circumstances. Given the evidence Smart Parking Limited have provided, and it is made apparent that the motorist would have been aware of the signage around the car park. We would like to clarify that there was sufficient signage on site on the date of contravention and that the BPA Code of Practice October 2015, paragraph 34.4, states drivers must be given advance notice of all parking charges before they enter into the contract for parking services. There are several Smart Parking signs situated around the car park including an entrance sign that advise of the terms and conditions and we can confirm all signage on site is BPA approved. Had the Appellants acknowledged the signage they would have been aware of the circumstances in which a Parking Charge Notice can be issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they acknowledge all signage when entering the car park and to adhere to the terms and conditions, as the driver parked in breach of these terms and conditions, the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly. As the Appellant has exceeded the maximum stay period, this confirms that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly.
Overall as the Appellant failed to adhere to the maximum 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 “Maximum stay 3 hours”. 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 xxxx and exited the site at xxxx. The Appellant’s total duration of stay was xxx minutes. As the signs clearly state there is a maximum stay period of 3 hours (180 minutes). The Appellant therefore failed to comply with the advertised terms and conditions and this confirms the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.
Within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states “the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the appellant remained on site for xxx minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.
There are several 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 Appellant acknowledged the terms and conditions they would have been aware of the maximum stay time.
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 of the above and evidence enclosed. Smart Parking Limited have decided to uphold the parking charge notice.

Ralph-y

That needs some formatting please ....


you need to follow CM's advice above .....



do not miss the deadline as others have mentioned ......


you are still under the allusion that PPC's are to be trusted .... they are not ... they lie ....


watch / read what MP's think ...


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.


and consider a SAR request ...


good luck


Ralph:cool:

Guys_Dad

flopsy1973 wrote: »

The Appellant states they are an employee in xxxxxxxx which is situated on Ystwyth Retail Park, they had registered their vehicle registration number with the company before this PCN was issued, they are not liable for this fine as xxxxxxxxx has a contract with Smart Parking where their employees are legally allowed to park on such car parks, therefore, having registered their vehicle under this agreement they firmly believe that the vehicle was not improperly parked and that they are not accountable for this parking charge.
Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that the contravention in question is in regard to overstaying the maximum stay period.

You need to get a copy of the agreement between Smart and your company. The PPC has not addressed this point unless the agreement between your company and Smart only gives 3 hours parking for employees. Clearly this would be useless for employees working normal days.

Getr confirmation of the agreement and you can use that to rebut the charge that you parked over 3 hours whether or not you have previously put this in evidence.

Don't forget to claim costs when you win.