Not so Smart Parking query

Madmel

I have read the newbies thread a couple of times but I am still a bit confused and would welcome your advice.

DH received a letter from the above named shower yesterday. It has 2 photos of a vehicle of which he is the registered keeper entering & leaving a carpark operated by this organisation. He parked there, but after parking saw that the ticket machine was out of order. He crossed the car park and went to the only other working machine. He put in his registration number and the correct fee but the machine jammed. It would not release either the coin or a ticket. He left a note on his windscreen, did whatever errands he had paid to do, then left within the time-frame of the fee. Yesterday this speculative letter (with his name incorrect) arrived. The incident was within the last 28 days and there was no windscreen ticket. The text of the letter is minuscule and there is no mention of POFA on either side.

The system is ANPR only and from my googling of the local council planning portal back to 1985 when the site was developed, it would seem that there was no planning permission for cameras there. Am I going down a blind alley with this?

We are planning to appeal to get the POPLA code then hit them with an appropriate defence there. However, given that he did pay, do you think we can stop this prior to POPLA?

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

The_Deep

Smart parking were torn a new one in the House of Commons earlier this week.

beamerguy

No point in leaving a note on the windscreen when it's ANPR

What happened to the money you put in, who keeps that ???

Nice little money earner

Umkomaas

We are planning to appeal to get the POPLA code then hit them with an appropriate defence there. However, given that he did pay, do you think we can stop this prior to POPLA?

Unlikely, PPCs deal with appeals on an industrial scale, they don't really read them and the only way they can efficiently deal with them is to automatically reject.

Unless you have some proof of the machine jamming, this line of defence will not get you very far.

Better you work on the other POPLA appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3, when the time comes.

The incident was within the last 28 days and there was no windscreen ticket.

For an ANPR ticket 28 days is neither here nor there. Please give us the date of parking incident, the date of issue on the NtK and the date you received it. They are the important ones.

In the same vein, I don't think that Smart NtKs are PoFA compliant, so your line of attack at POPLA will be 'No Keeper Liability' - provided there is no communication with Smart which identifies the driver.

Just send the basic initial appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1. You could add a line about the machines being out of order - but please be so careful how that line is written, because that could shoot your whole case down in flames if the driver is inadvertently identified. If in any doubt, leave it out.

Madmel

Thanks beamerguy. Unfortunately, DH is not as clued up on such matters. He did not even realise it was ANPR until the letter arrived yesterday, I presume he thought someone in a hi-viz jacket patrolled regularly, perhaps helping elderly customers with their shopping, cheerily greeting people as they entered and congratulating them as they bagged their deals.

Forgive my sarcasm. From my googling yesterday, this carpark is renowned for this according to the Consumer Action Group forums. We will be writing both to our own MP and the MP in whose constituency this occurred - they sit on opposite sides of the House - so place your bets now as to the better response.

I may be naive but I thought that DH had satisfied the law of contract: he read the terms, accepted them by paying a fee and on return should have been able to park for the required amount of time. Am I wrong?

Madmel

Umkomaas wrote: »

For an ANPR ticket 28 days is neither here nor there. Please give us the date of parking incident, the date of issue on the NtK and the date you received it. They are the important ones.

Thank you Umkomaas. The incident occurred on 15th November 2018. The date of issue of the NtK is 22nd November and it was received yesterday, 24th November.

beamerguy

Madmel wrote: »

I may be naive but I thought that DH had satisfied the law of contract: he read the terms, accepted them by paying a fee and on return should have been able to park for the required amount of time. Am I wrong?

That's how it works. These pay machines are known to cause problems. You will not be the only one with this problem and you should be talking to the media who do a good job of exposing fraud.

Not long ago, the Aussie owners sacked the UK directors of Smart for fraud and theft.
The "ticket machine not working" is common and the perfect way to defraud the public with £100 charges

So easy for Smart to disable the pay machine.

So, if the machine did not print a ticket and did not reject coins, then Smart must account for this

The_Deep

I agree, as would, almost certainly, a judge. But to win at court a motorist must spend many hours reading and researching, write lots of stuff, and will, at the end of the day, be out of pocket.

Why not get Trading Standards involved.

Madmel

Great idea The Deep! I will do that.

The_Deep

Send them a copy of this

Pete Wishart M.P. (SNP, Perth):

"I am sick and tired of receiving emails from people complaining about the behaviour of parking companies, telling me that they will never again visit Perth city centre because of the negative experience they had when they had the misfortune to end up in a car park operated by one of these companies. I have received more complaints about one car park in the city of Perth than about any other issue. That car park is operated by the lone ranger of the parking cowboys: the hated and appalling Smart Parking—I see that many other Members are unfortunate enough to have Smart Parking operating in their constituencies. It has reached the stage where one member of my staff now spends a good part of each day just helping my constituents and visitors to my constituency to navigate the appeals process.
…
The BPA does not have the ability to regulate these companies and has shown no sign whatsoever that it is trying to get on top of some of the sharper practices. The BPA gives a veneer of legitimacy to some of the more outlandish rogue operators by including them in their membership, allowing them to continue to operate. The Bill will oblige operators such as Smart Parking to amend their practices."

Madmel

Thanks The Deep. I've done that, along with a description of the events. Next thing is to write to the MP in whose constituency it falls and our local one. I'm meant to be marking books, not researching parking matters...