Smart Parking PCN Drop Off Zone Overstay

silentvoices

Dear All,

I have received a PCN for Overstaying at a Drop Off Zone, total time i was there was about 25 minutes saying that i have been doing that for years and this is the first time i have received a PCN from Smart Parking so not sure if there are any signs which offcourse I did not see, smart parking claims there are signs up now etc...

Please kindly advice

silentvoices

This is my reply:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the registered keeper of the vehicle and deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e. any picture to show the clear signs/marking of drop off zone / No Stopping or No waiting allowed

This is the allegation of waiting on a drop off zone for 23 minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

Additional to the above, drop off area (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that Smart Parking has NO right to claim anything from the driver

Please provide satisfactory evidence as requested above for clear signs / drop off zone etc. as in the pictures one can only see a double yellow line and nothing else

Please kindly cancel the PCN or reject the appeal with a POPLA code provided

Fruitcake

Don't use the word "I" in your first post. Only ever refer to the Driver and the Keeper, who are two different people.

Forget grace periods if the stay was over 21 minutes, unless an occupant was disabled and needed more time.

Forget what the traffic regulations say. They don't apply on private land.

Follow the advice in the NEWBIES and send the initial template in blue, unaltered, from the keeper.

Get pics of the site and signage ready for PoPLA if/when your initial appeal us rejected. Do not reveal the driver's identity at any point.

Umkomaas

Additional to the above, drop off area (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that Smart Parking has NO right to claim anything from the driver

Why do you think there is no right to claim anything from the driver?

silentvoices

Hey,

@Fruitcake, thanks a lot

@Umkomaas,

I thought it just a double yellow line so waiting was allowed Sorry dumb me

thanks a lot both

Umkomaas

silentvoices wrote: »

Hey,

@Fruitcake, thanks a lot

@Umkomaas,

I thought it just a double yellow line so waiting was allowed Sorry dumb me

thanks a lot both

But that isn't what you're saying in your appeal. You've linked the statement to PoFA and 'Not Relevant Land'. In either case the driver' can be liable. Not Relevant Land does not mean the charge is invalid - it's not that straightforward.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Read what Pete Wishart MP said recently in the House of commons about Smart Parking recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"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." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]l[/FONT]






[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

It is pretty clear you meant to put:

Additional to the above, drop off area (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that Smart Parking has NO right to claim anything from the registered keeper.

silentvoices

@Coupon-mad, thanks

below is my second take based on the template in blue from the newbies section

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.: any picture to show the clear signs/marking of drop off zone / No Stopping or No waiting allowed

This is the allegation of waiting on a drop off zone, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

Additional to the above, drop off area (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that Smart Parking has NO right to claim anything from the registered keeper

Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

That's much better wording, but whether Smart Parking will even get that far down the page before rejecting your appeal is debatable.

To draw attention to the killer paragraph, why not embolden it so they focus immediately on the futility of their claim against the registered keeper.

silentvoices

@Umkomass,

thanks mate here you go hope this will suffice

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.: any picture to show the clear signs/marking of drop off zone / No Stopping or No waiting allowed

This is the allegation of waiting on a drop off zone, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

Additional to the above, drop off area (being provided by a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")) is not relevant land for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA. This means that Smart Parking has NO right to claim anything from the registered keeper

Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,