Smart parking POPLA response

Coupon-mad

Looks perfectly reasonable as comments, to me, if POPLA were already shown the evidence that the driver was an employee, and if the signs are aimed at 'shoppers' or 'customers' only. Don't hang about, submit your comments.

Even if you lost v Smart, at POPLA, no-one would PAY them so there is nothing to worry about!

flopsy1973

Hi
Popla has refused the appeal on the grounds that she overstayed the stated time and the evidence only shows she registered car with employers ten days after the offence.
She has already started to get debt collection letters what does she do now she is still in school and she can not afford this
Thanks

nosferatu1001

Youve already been told what to do - here and in the newbies thread

NOONE GIVES TWO FIGS about debt collectors letters. They are UTTERLY and TOTALLY ignorable. File them away, but dont pay attention to them!

Smart dont do court. Dont pay.

beamerguy

flopsy1973 wrote: »

Hi
Popla has refused the appeal on the grounds that she overstayed the stated time and the evidence only shows she registered car with employers ten days after the offence.
She has already started to get debt collection letters what does she do now she is still in school and she can not afford this
Thanks

Flopsy, point your friend here ....

Debt Collectors (DRP & ZZPS) What they don't want you to know

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74439905#Comment_74439905

flopsy1973

Ok after reading that thread I ignore these but what happens if they get solicitors involved. Are they really going to take a 17 year old to court when she has no way of paying? Is it worth writing letter to smart stating she has no assets or way of paying this?

Thorsson

You seem to be assuming that these are "proper" trading companies, but they are actually scammers. They don't care about the facts, they want to scare people into paying. The experts are telling you that they will not take this to court and to ignore debt collectors' letters. What more do you want?

KeithP

flopsy1973 wrote: »

Ok after reading that thread I ignore these but what happens if they get solicitors involved. Are they really going to take a 17 year old to court when she has no way of paying? Is it worth writing letter to smart stating she has no assets or way of paying this?

No assets? But the 17 year old has a car. Every 17 year old I know has an expensive mobile phone.
Your daughter works. Any court debt could be deducted from her wages.

Forget any idea that affordability has anything to do with it.

Having said all that, you can see here the likelihood of a court claim:

www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Smart_Parking.html

Yes, you read that right.
Over eight hundred thousand tickets issued over the last two and a half years but less than fifty court appearances.

[Deleted User]

Ok so what is implicit in that rejection is (1) that they accept she was an employee and (2) had she registered (so they knew) she'd not have been ticketed.

What it does not address is the key question, namely whether the 3 hour parking term applies to customers/trespassers only.

If her employer says she was correctly there and this is clarified to the PPC they should drop it. They probably won't until they've started court action, but this is well capable of being defended.

You should advise the PPC that your daughter is not yet an adult and confirm your correspondence address with an indication that the continued pursuit of the sums claimed from an employee to whom customer parking terms do not apply is misconceived.

Oh and they can't bring proceedings against your daughter until her 18th birthday (unless you are appointed litigation friend).... But they can wait for her majority.....