POPLA Stage (Appealing against SMART Parking)

SmartPCN

Dear forum Helpers, Hope You are fine, Please see comments below, I am going to submit to POPLA:

---

Starts here

---

1) There's no contract with the landowner provided.
2) The NTK fails to comply with paragraph 9(2) of POFA, in particularly (e), (f) and (i).
3) Page 9 of the “Case Summary” document by Smart Parking, where, a car with number plate P has been paid for the time duration that I spent there. I can clearly see another problem here; with the machine inputting only P number plate. This is not in compliance with GDPR law as well. The machine should validate the full number plate, and allow only the full number plate.
4) Re-iterating the same point, Machine has some fault as P in any case should not be allowed to be entered on its own – just one character, it should has some minimum length checks for entering a number plate.

5) As a law abiding citizen, I have paid for the duration correctly, stayed and left well within my time finishes, ticket is valid as well the amount being transacted on Smart Parking site, agreed and proved as per pictures provided in the case summary, legitimately paid and can easily be reconciled.

6) Lastly, Mentioning “I” does not mean I am the driver of the vehicle, I wrote everything with “I” in order to protect driver’s identity. I am a registered keeper of the vehicle.

---

Ends here

---

nosferatu1001

How can you not have found POFA Schedule 4 para 9 yet? Its on the gov.uk website, plain as day.

Why bother with 6? Just put THE DRIVER paid for... and use I when you are talking abbout you, the RK. EAsy. You just confuse matters otherwise.

KeithP

SmartPCN wrote: »

Dear Castle,
Can You please let me know what is 9(2) e, f and i are? I have searched through internet and could not get any points within 9, kindly if you elaborate.

There is a link to POFA Schedule 4 in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

SmartPCN

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

How can you not have found POFA Schedule 4 para 9 yet? Its on the gov.uk website, plain as day.

Why bother with 6? Just put THE DRIVER paid for... and use I when you are talking abbout you, the RK. EAsy. You just confuse matters otherwise.

Accept my apologies, I searched for POFA 2012 and landed on http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/keeper-liability-explained/.

Thanks for all your help.

Coupon-mad

That's not the law itself and not a website we recommend. When you Google stuff about parking law, don't read random results...

The NEWBIES thread gives you the actual Schedule 4 to read. The link is RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM in the sticky thread.

Errrrmmm... have you already blabbed about who was driving?

IF NOT, please don't ruin your entire appeal now at the last gasp:

for the time duration that I spent there.

I have paid for the duration correctly, stayed and left well within my time finishes

Lastly, Mentioning “I” does not mean I am the driver of the vehicle, I wrote everything with “I” in order to protect driver’s identity. I am a registered keeper of the vehicle.

NO.

Just put ''the driver'' INSTEAD of ''I'' because what you've put there is capable of misreading, despite your disclaimer at the end!

SmartPCN

SmartPCN wrote: »

Accept my apologies, I searched for POFA 2012 and landed on http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/keeper-liability-explained/.

Thanks for all your help.

Final comments here:

----Starts----

1) There's no contract with the landowner provided.
2) The NTK fails to comply with paragraph 9(2) of POFA, in particularly (e), (f) and (i).
3) Page 9 of the “Case Summary” document by Smart Parking, where, a car with number plate P has been paid for the time duration that the driver spent there. It is clear that there is another problem here, with the machine inputting only P number plate. This is not in compliance with GDPR law as well. The machine should validate the full number plate, and allow only the full number plate.
4) Re-iterating the same point, The machine has some fault as P in any case should not be allowed to be entered on its own – just one character, it should have some minimum length checks for entering a number plate.

5) As a law abiding citizen, The Driver has paid for the duration correctly, stayed and left well within the time finishes, the ticket is valid as well the amount being transacted on the Smart Parking side, agreed and proved as per pictures provided in the case summary, legitimately paid and can easily be reconciled.

----Ends----

I will post this before mid-night Today, thanks all.

SmartPCN

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's not the law itself and not a website we recommend. When you Google stuff about parking law, don't read random results...

The NEWBIES thread gives you the actual Schedule 4 to read. The link is RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM in the sticky thread.

Errrrmmm... have you already blabbed about who was driving?

IF NOT, please don't ruin your entire appeal now at the last gasp:



NO.

Just put ''the driver'' INSTEAD of ''I'' because what you've put there is capable of misreading, despite your disclaimer at the end!

Its totally my ignorance, apologies, I should have searched carefully and read carefully, many thanks for your response, I will completely remove point (6). Thanks once again.

Coupon-mad

Looks great, and you WILL win on one of these points:

- no landowner contract (unless they included a landowner WS)

or

- no keeper liability (as long as the first appeal never implied who was driving).

SmartPCN

Thanks Coupon-Mad and Hi to All.

After waiting for quite some time, I got an email Today from POPLA, below, nothing is available on their portal, tried since morning quite few times and already reported them, finger crossed, not sure what is the decision (worried):

"
Your parking charge Appeal against Smart Parking.
Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for this Appeal.
We have now reached the end of our investigation process and the decision can be found on the portal.

"

nosferatu1001

Dont be worried. Win or lose you dont pay Smart, ever.