Smart parking - wrong reg POPLA appeal

Paved_Paradise

Hello everyone,

I have come here in need of advice on what to do about my partners parking ticket.

I recently started using the Ringgo app when I was caught short for change. Registered it for my car and used it once. The next day we went on a family outing in my partners car and still didn't have any change, so I thought 'no worries, I have ringgo!' Being pressed for time I navigated the menus, entered the parking location number and clicked through to pay. Not realizing, foolishly that I needed to add her cars registration. I paid for 2 hours and we set off. We returned to her car well within the allotted time and thought nothing of it.

A week or so later we get a lovely parking fine from Smart Parking Ltd. £60 for early payers, £100 after the 'grace' period. At this point I realize my mistake and we send off an appeal to smart parking citing our reasons and attaching the ringgo invoice as proof. We also attached a image of our cars parked next to each other on our driveway (for what it was worth!)

Today we received our predictable rejection letter, complete with POPLA code and need a bit of advice on how to proceed?

I have read the NEWBIES thread and l understand I will need to construct a letter to POPLA. I have been reading other cases and feel like i'm not getting anywhere!

Any help or info would be greatly appreciated!

Fruitcake

It's a shame you gave away the driver's identity when you appealed. In future, only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

Never mind, that can't be helped now. You should construct a draft PoPLA appeal using all the relevant points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES. Get photos of the signs and car park entrance if possible, and post your draft appeal here before you submit it.

Please also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam as advised in the NEWBIES, plus complain to the MP where the car park is located if different.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Paved_Paradise

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

We never admitted who the driver was. Just that I had paid for the wrong registration.
Or is that one and the same in their eyes?

We never spoke with the landowner. Not even sure of where to find that info?
Unfortunately we didn't know forums like this existed when we sent off our appeal to smart.
Just assumed our case would be treated with some common sense! (naive to say the least!)

Fruitcake

Paved_Paradise wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

We never admitted who the driver was. Just that I had paid for the wrong registration.
Or is that one and the same in their eyes?

We never spoke with the landowner. Not even sure of where to find that info?
Unfortunately we didn't know forums like this existed when we sent off our appeal to smart.
Just assumed our case would be treated with some common sense! (naive to say the least!)

It would depend on how your appeal was worded. The person who paid could have been a passenger and therefore cannot be assumed to have been the driver. If however someone stupidly said, I parked, or, I drove, then that throws away that very valuable appeal point.
It will be worth therefore using non-PoFA complaint NTK as one of the appeal points and letting the PoPLA assessor decide. Use all the points available from post 3 of the NEWBIES then post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

It's Not so Smart Parking so the chances of court are luckily very low, although that could change in the next six years.

This assumes of course you are talking about an alleged event in England or Wales.

Ralph-y

"Just assumed our case would be treated with some common sense! (naive to say the least!)"


you have lots to learn ....


watch read the below for a small taste ...







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

and slightly longer, the committee stage

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

''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 some quotes from the committe stage

"The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
" is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
"They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
"Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
"The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
“I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
"The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
" It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
"The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
"what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
" the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
"tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
"They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
" because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard




Ralph:cool:

Paved_Paradise

Am I right to assume if I throw enough mud, some is bound to stick?

My main defense is/was that parking was paid for. As far as I can tell none of the points on the Newbies thread cover that. Do I just skip over that and just attack the points on post 3 of newbies?

Thanks again :beer:

Redx

yes , legal arguments are required, but add a bit of background stating the parking was paid for and add proof by attaching pics of the ticket or ringo app proof etc


but the main popla appeal is based on all the usual legal arguments , so if the driver was not named include POFA2012 etc as well as de-minimis , no contract , poor signage , BPA CoP errors etc (chuck everything in)

Paved_Paradise

Fruitcake wrote: »

This assumes of course you are talking about an alleged event in England or Wales.

Not sure I follow!? It was in England FWIW

Redx

he means as long as it wasnt in Scotland or N Ireland , as different laws apply in the different nations (or are you assuming all the laws are the same throughout the UK ?)

for example , POFA2012 applies in E & W only, hence the advice given about POFA2012


HOWEVER, a DRIVER is liable in all 4 nations

Paved_Paradise

Is this near the Mark? Largely lifted from a previous successful appeal and edited to suit my case.
Go easy on me!



Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number xxxxxx Vehicle registration xxxx

I am the Keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from Smart Parking. My appeal to Smart Parking was rejected on xxxx and they gave me POPLA code xxx.

The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:
1) The correct amount of time was paid for and adhered to.
2) The signage not clear and legible.
3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate, Time on site is not parking time.
4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5) Entry times differs to payment time.
6) Keeper liability.

1) The correct amount of time was paid for and adhered to.

The Vehicle (REGISTRATION) enterred the (CAR PARK ADDRESS) on (DATE) at (TIME) as evidenced by Smart Parking LTD photographs. Several attempts were made to pay for 2 hours of parking via the Ringgo app using (REGISTRATION) and met with an error. On one final attempt payment was accepted but this ended up being for a seperate Registration formerly used on said app (DIFF REG HERE?), a detail not noticed until the Parking Charge Notice was recieved on (DATE).

The attached invoice (LINK) proves the correct amount of time was purchased for the wrong vehicle however the location and times tally up. Smart Parking LTD have not offered any evidence of (WRONG REG) entering or exiting (CAR PARK ADDRESS) on the accused date.

As you can see on the Smart Parking LTD photographs. They have recorded the vehicle entering (CAR PARK ADDRESS) at 13:58:10 and leaving at 15:42:20 a stay of 1 hour 44 mins 10 secs. That is 15 mins 50 secs within the time purchased (2hrs) evidenced by the attached invoice.

This proves the correct amount of money was paid and no loss has been made to Smart Parking LTD and/or the Landowner.

2) The signage not clear and legible.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.
18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations.

The signage before entering the car park states “purchase a parking ticket for the duration of your stay” which the driver complied with. The sign on entry has no reference to when the parking period begins (see attached – Image of entry sign).

The POPLA annual report 2016 states:

In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end
of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.! Upon entering xxx street carpark the sign is not even on the side of the road that the motorist drives in but is on the right hand side of the road. It does not state that you are being charged upon entering.

The signage for the terms and conditions has very small font which is difficult to read and understand. They are unreadable due to the small font that has been used. The sign upon entering has a very small print that cannot be read even if zoomed in on let alone from the distance when driving a car. ANPR systems is a technical word that has no meaning to the average person who is not from a technical background so putting this on signs is not a clear explanation.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. 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. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this


3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate, Time on site is not parking time.

I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, date, licence plate) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge Smart Parking Ltd to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.).

BPA COP 20.5 states
When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

Smart Parking has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Smart Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent).!Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Smart Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Smart Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for Smart Parking merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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!

5) Entry times differs to payment time.

The time of entry also differs to the time on the payment ticket so one would assume that the parking time begins from paying for the ticket as the exit time displayed on the same ticket is two hours after payment has been made.

It could take up to 5-10 minutes to purchase a ticket due to having to find a park, locate and walk to the machine, and queue up with others to purchase a ticket. Therefore, grace period should be accounted for in this situation due to the terms contradicting with entry time and start time of the payment ticket.


6) Keeper liability.

If Smart Parking want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and Smart Parking have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Smart Parking have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.

I appreciate you taking the above into account during your objective considered assessment.


Regards

Keeper

Redx

I cannot see anything about de-minimis , despite me mentioning it earlier


plus SMART accepted the new contract which had been varied for the incorrect reg, so add that into the fact that the time had been paid for and SMART accepted payment and so accepted the new contract