Smart Parking PCN

meganet

Hi,

I suspect I found this site too late in the day. I'd appreciate some guidance on whether I should pursue this any longer.

I contested the original PCN with Smart Parking and have also appealed to POPLA.

I've now been sent some additional information by POPLA from Smart Parking which provides further details of the car park, signage, terms etc. POPLA shared this with me and gave me 7 days to respond.

Unfortunately I used 'I' in both appeals so cannot realistically refute that I was driving.

Before I go into details I'd appreciate it if someone could offer guidance on whether or not I should continue with my appeal or is all now lost?

By the way, I've read the Newbie pages. I've seen the section on what to do after the POPLA appeal, however, as I've effectively admitted that I was driving I'm not sure if continuing with my appeal is worth it and if it is should I continue using the templated wording which is specifically written in the 3rd person?

Many thanks
MN

Le_Kirk

What you appear to have received is POPLA's response to your appeal and you now have 2,000 CHARACTERS to use to refute it. Go through it and compile a rebuttal pointing out where the response does not match your appeal, failings in signage etc. Anywhere they do not refute your appeal points you can take to be as you stated in the original appeal.

Redx

as above , continue anyway , but if you are an admitted driver due to the use of the banned word I , then POFA cannot help you , meaning you will have to rebut the evidence pack , including signage , BPA CoP failures , no landowner authority , no parking contract with driver etc

construct your popla rebuttal in under 2000 characters (not words) , so concise bullet points , after dissecting their evidence pack carefullly

look at previous rebuttals for inspiration, but only from 2019 , not older ones


in future , the following words should not be used


"MY , ME , MYSELF & I"

KeithP

One think is certain - if you do not challenge Smart's assertions, you will lose your PoPLA appeal.

You must challenge everything in their evidence that is wrong.

You must point out to PoPLA everything in you appeal that Smart have not challenged, as that obviously means that they agree with your assertions.

Be concise - you only have 2000 characters to make your points.

You also only have six days to respond.

Umkomaas

Responding to a parking firms evidence is not via template. You need to pick through what they've sent, rebut anything that isn't correct, or you disagree with.

You have only 2,000 characters (not words) available to write your rebuttal, and in effect you don't have 7 days, but 6 days in which to get all this done.

But even if you lose at POPLA, the decision isn't binding on you and if Smart want your money, the only way they can get it (if you don't want to hand it to them) is to take you to court.

The good news is that Smart are extremely court-shy and only on very rare occasions do they chance their arm. So you get an idea of scale, Smart issue near to 1 million tickets a year, if they issue court proceedings in 20 cases, that would be about it, in my estimation. They do have 6 years to pursue any court case however.

Good luck with your rebuttal.

meganet

Thanks all, much appreciated. In my case ANPR entry/exit pictures are just over 11 minutes apart. I was not able to park up immediately, my way was blocked, but after I did and saw the charges left immediately.

My point was that I was delayed getting to read the terms and would have left sooner otherwise.

Once again, thanks for all your replies.

Redx

The BPA Cop clause 13 explains grace periods , so I hope you broke the 11 minutes into 2 separate periods and mentioned about being blocked , causing a delay

The exit time allowed is 10 minutes or more , never mind the time to park on entry , even when not blocked

So 2 grace periods , not one

Coupon-mad

meganet wrote: »

Thanks all, much appreciated. In my case ANPR entry/exit pictures are just over 11 minutes apart. I was not able to park up immediately, my way was blocked, but after I did and saw the charges left immediately.

My point was that I was delayed getting to read the terms and would have left sooner otherwise.

You need to repeat that in the comments, and remind POPLA what the delay was in stopping you parking up before you could even read the signs.

And NEXT TIME you get one, for the love of GOD don't say who was driving. This would have been cancelled without any need for POPLA, had you come here first.

meganet

Thanks Redx, is that specifically clause 13.1, 13.2 or both. Reading them from a layman's point of view it isn't clear to me where that states two grace periods.

And yes, I've mentioned the delay in parking to both Smart Parking and POPLA.

meganet

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to repeat that in the comments, and remind POPLA what the delay was in stopping you parking up before you could even read the signs.

Thanks Coupon-mad. I intend to repeat that. I'll also point out the BPA rewording of clause 13 from January 2018, assuming that is the latest amendment.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Read what Pete Wishart MP said recently in the House of commons about Smart Parking.[/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, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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][/FONT]














[/FONT]