DRP / Smart Parking LTD

mateusz243

Hello,
I've been following this forum for a while and it helped me with one PCN but now I need a direct asnwer what to do.
In February I have parked at parking in Oldham/Manchester which is run by Smart Parking LTD. The machine was not working and I was unable to enter my full reg number so I entered only part of it. Of course I got a PCN and i appealed but it was refused. I appealed again to POPLA but I did not received any answer. It turns out it was also rejected and I received a letter from DRP that I have to pay 170 pounds. I called them and told them I have paid for my parking and I even got my parking ticket with me but the machine was broken. The operator just told me I have 14 days to pay before any legal action is made.
Below is POPLA statement

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that when they tried to pay for parking the keyboard on the payment machine was faulty and they were unable to enter their vehicle registration and they were only able to enter G. They state that it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that the payment machines work correctly. The appellant has provided an image of their ticket as evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention, I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states; ”Parking tariffs apply”, ”Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine”, ”Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. The operator has provided evidence to show the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:01 and exiting the site at 12:32 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence which shows that a payment had been recorded under the registration G. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that when they tried to pay for parking the keyboard on the payment machine was faulty and they were unable to enter their vehicle registration and they were only able to enter G. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a system print out which shows other motorists were able to make payments for parking using the letter V, throughout the day in question. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. POPLA assess appeals on the evidence provided by both parties. Based upon the evidence provided I am satisfied that the payment machine was working correctly and taking revenue. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. This states “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”. The appellant states that it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that the payment machines work correctly. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. If the appellant felt the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with due to the keyboard issues, there would have been a reasonable opportunity to leave the site before entering into a contract with the operator. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The motorist chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Redx

IGNORE and wait for court papers within 6 years, if they decide to try it

nothing you can do at this stage, see post #4 of the NEWBIES faq sticky thread for details

meanwhile, keep that parking ticket safe and keep all the paperwork too , for over 6 years

Coupon-mad

I've been following this forum for a while

Not closely enough!

Smart were 100% beatable by using the templates, and not saying who was driving.

What were you thinking of, by putting in a doomed POPLA appeal about the story of what happened and telling the world who the driver was, when Smart are well known on this forum to have never used the POFA and have never been able to hold any keepers liable.

A wasted opportunity.

Luckily, Smart do not sue people (as at the time of writing).

Egbert_Nobacon

Agree with Reds.
Doubt that Smart would try court with such a flimsy case.

In the meantime do not contact debt collectors - it only encourages the scum.