SAR documents received from Smart Parking regarding alleged breach in Scotland - request for advice

[Deleted User]

Hello all.

I am a long-time lurker here - not because I enjoy reading about the finer points of car parking fines, but because I've been navigating various unwanted approaches from Smart Parking / Debt Recovery Plus / CST Law over the last year or so. I have followed all of the advice on the introductory thread in regards to ignoring the various spam letters from Smart Parking and CST Law. I am just looking for a bit of clarity around my current position - as just getting a wee bit nervous now as to what might be coming down the line. Before I get into the facts of my case, just a thank you to those forum regulars who have provided so much useful information to all here - really appreciated and has brought peace of mind as I've been bombarded with letters demanding cash.

The facts:
The alleged parking misdemeanour occurred in a Smart Parking car park in Scotland, and I live in Scotland. The car is in my possession on a long-term lease deal. I didn't challenge this at the outset (I realise that may have been a mistake) and ignored their letters - which somewhere along the way morphed into Debt Recovery Plus letters, and then CST Law 'acting for Smart Parking' (however, the 'make payment to' section remains DRP). Smart asked for £60, then it moved to £100, and now CST are seeking £170 on behalf of Smart/DRP.

The latest letter received was a 'Letter before claim' from CST Law - you know the type, giving me the chance to make payment before this inevitably goes to court. I followed advice and sent a Subject Access Request to Smart Parking. In response, Smart Parking have responded with images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park, with one image just about clear enough to make out the driver of the vehicle (albeit a grainy image). They've also provided details of the car parking charge (allegation is that the driver overstayed for 32 minutes, car park is 50p per hour) that they're claiming for and a copy of the terms and conditions at the site where the alleged breach occurred. They have refused my request for CCTV footage of the alleged breach / covering the ticket machine (saying none is available), and have refused to provide a list of pay machine transactions from the day in question - even though I asked for this to be provided in a redacted document. However, they say that they see no payment for a vehicle registration number that matches the "full and correct VRN or is recognisably the same VRN". They also add: "There is no full and correct payment to your full and correct VRN".

I asked for images of the signs from the car park too - they have been provided - however, I have no way of telling whether they were in place when the alleged breach took place (well over a year ago now). I also asked for a map of the car park showing any cameras covering the car park, including the ticket machine, and details of calibration records / error report records to ensure the ticket machine was in full working order in the day in question. They refused to provide this information, saying it isn't available as part of a SAR.

I have not engaged with CST Law or DRP at any time. 

My concerns / questions:

• Given I am in Scotland - and CST Law appear to be a laughing stock right across the UK, but even more so north of the Border - is this likely to ever make it to court?
• Should this make it to court, what are the chances of successfully defending this claim? As they have a semi-clear image of the driver, does this impact my ability to defend this, should it go to court? 
• What would the best course of defence be, going on the information provided?
• Should I lose in court, what is the maximum I'd be expected to fork out to this mob, including court costs? I.e: my biggest concern: could I be left regretting not paying a £170 fine if a court could sting me for ££££s?

From reading the forum, I'm not clear on what my next move should be, now that I've received my SAR documents back. I realise this is exactly where Smart Parking / CST / DRP want me - worrying about a big payout for the sake of refusing to cave into their demands. I suppose I am just looking for some sort of advice from those who have been in a similar situation in the past. 

Any help you're able to offer is much appreciated - and, once again, thank you to everyone here selflessly giving their time here to help others.

Fruitcake

If your name is on the V5C then continue to ignore.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

An SAR is a request for your personal data. The scammers are not required to supply anything that is not your personal data.

[Deleted User]

Thank you Fruitcake. I have never seen the V5C - but I will be down as the registered keeper. 

I didn't complain to Smart Parking (presuming they are the landowner) at the time - as I was told by various people to ignore, ignore, ignore. It was only when I landed here that I read that as a possible step. Will that be problematic for me?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

I didn't complain to Smart Parking (presuming they are the landowner) 

You what?  Smart parking don't own any car park land!

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't complain to Smart Parking (presuming they are the landowner) 

You what?  Smart parking don't own any car park land!

Sorry, I don't know anything about them. As far as I know, it was a car park unrelated to a retail business (i.e. wasn'ta supermarket car park - but appeared to just be a bit of ungated land off a street. I could try and work out who owns the land, if it is going to be beneficial at this stage.

Fruitcake

I don't know how it works in Scotland, but in England you can ask the local council who pays the non-domestic business rates to get a pretty good idea.
For a definitive answer, you can buy a copy of the Land Registry entry for about £3. Personally I wouldn't be spending any money or too much time or effort on this. The chances of a parking scammer taking a keeper to court in Scotland for a single ticket is very small. Multiple tickets, yes it might be worth their while, but not for a one off.

Umkomaas

Read what @northseajoe1 is doing about his CST/Smart case and follow his lead. That's about it. Chances of this going to court - nil. 

beamerguy

Deleted User said:

My concerns / questions:

• Given I am in Scotland - and CST Law appear to be a laughing stock right across the UK, but even more so north of the Border - is this likely to ever make it to court?
• Should this make it to court, what are the chances of successfully defending this claim? As they have a semi-clear image of the driver, does this impact my ability to defend this, should it go to court? 
• What would the best course of defence be, going on the information provided?
• Should I lose in court, what is the maximum I'd be expected to fork out to this mob, including court costs? I.e: my biggest concern: could I be left regretting not paying a £170 fine if a court could sting me for ££££s?

CST have indeed become a laughing stock, so have SMART PARKING.
You do not owe £170 ... CST HAS ADDED A SCAM £70.   Courts in E & W call it double recovery or Abuse of Process, I am sure judges in Scotland have their own words

As very very few of these cases appear in Scotland over a single ticket, CST will probably be on a suicide mission.  Ian Blackford and Pete Wishart are fully aware of this scam so you can add to the letters by sending them a copy of the CST letter adding a scam fake amount of £70

As Umkomaas said .. Read what @northseajoe1 is doing

I don't think the sheriffs court would add anything, it is a small claims court like south of the border

As also said, ignore the scammer. If they want to bring a scam into court, I would imagine the Scottish Judiciary already know about the scam from an English scammer

And do follow the group thread

CST letters' forum group thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6166004/cst-letters-forum-group-thread/p1

 

D_P_Dance

Sorry, I don't know anything about them. 

Then read this

Pete Wishart MP said recently in the House of commons about Smart Parking.

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.

and complain to your own MP.

beamerguy

Worth reading about the wrath in Scotland about Smart Parking

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/tag/smart-parking/

Umkomaas

“However in this particular case, as an act of compassion we have decided to cancel Mr Greer’s charge.”

There is as much compassion in PPC world as there is in a ravenous hyena stumbling across a new-born springbok lamb.