Smart Parking ANPR PCN Company Car

ConfusedAboutLife

Hi, apologies if this has been answered before. I have read the newbies thread and searched for similar situations but I'm still a little confused about how best to proceed.

Smart Parking ANPR PCN for contravention on 5/12/18 received addressed to employer on 23/1/19 (dated 21/1/19) in respect of company car. I assumed it had been through the lease company first but, upon checking whether the correct documents had been received by the company with the Notice to Hirer, it appears the company is the registered keeper (so NTK is way outside of 14 days).

I know Smart don't rely on POFA but was going to appeal on company's behalf stating cannot hold keeper liable and will not be naming driver (using Edna Basher's template) but the company have not been very supportive so I'm wondering whether it would be better to write to Smart as day to day keeper and then appeal on the basis above - is that still possible? Would I need to wait for a further PCN?

I had it all straight until I found out the company was the registered keeper but now I'm confused again. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thank you

The_Deep

Read what one MP said in the House of Commons recently about Smart Parking and complain to your own MP.

Pete Wishart (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."


The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Umkomaas

I'm wondering whether it would be better to write to Smart as day to day keeper and then appeal on the basis above - is that still possible? Would I need to wait for a further PCN?

It would be best if the company wrote to transfer the case to you as the keeper with your name and address for service. Then you should receive your own NtK. Why not draft out a letter for your company to simply copy and paste onto a letterhead and sign. Offer to post it for them.

Second best would be you writing to Smart and try to get them to issue you with a NtK of your own.

In both cases, it's predicated on Smart cooperating. If they don't, they'll keep badgering your company. Maybe then your company will do the right thing.

ConfusedAboutLife

Thanks. Would they then have to issue me with a NTK or a Notice to Hirer? If I had my own NTK, what grounds could I then appeal on? Sorry, I'm just really confused about who is what party in this case!

Coupon-mad

Yes you would get a sheet of paper called a PCN or NTH, addressed to you.

You'd use the winning appeal grounds (no hirer liability) shown in the template appeal by Edna Basher, near the bottom of the first post of the NEWBIES thread in the section dedicated to company and lease cars.

That's what that section of the sticky thread is all about.