Not so Smart Parking Ltd - lost again

ihatetrump

Ok, the following letter arrived (not the first time posting but this is a new thread as a separate allegation).





I think I know where I'm going with this one, but just wanted to confirm with those more knowledgeable and also pass comment on the drivel they have written.

The font size they have used for the body of the letter  is so small  it is almost impossible tor read without a magnifying glass - clearly quite deliberate but is it legal? - I suspect the font size on their signage is similar and designed to intimidate.

I've read the post containing the following:- thanks to @D_P_Dance

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.

I will write to my MP to complain.

But now the facts:

1. I was not the driver & I will not identify the driver.
2. No evidence of parking - just entry time and exit less than 15 minutes later.
3. No windscreen ticket.
4.. Letter does not appear to be issued under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 and therefore keeper cannot be held liable.

5. Letter issued more than 14 days after date of alleged contravention - 20 days in fact - therefore per Newbies thread: with thanks to @Coupon-mad

If the NTK arrives late, this does not make the PCN 'void' but it means there is 'no keeper liability' possible.

If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.

Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.

Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, Highview, Smart Parking, CP Plus and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA 2012 wording so the keeper is not liable and you must you point that out to POPLA.

6. Landowner Authority - clearly Smart don't own the land - probably MK Council or Network Rail - although they try and imply as much in the first line of their letter (incredibly small font) - is it even relevant land.

7. Technically under para 4 of Schedule 9, the letter hasn't arrived yet! - comes tomorrow.

Main question is what to do next - clearly I won't be paying and neither will the driver (whoever that was)

Go through their appeal process? which is a fiasco as clearly they will reject it - this gets me access to POPLA appeal and then appeal on the basis of Keeper not liable as they non-compliant with para 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012?

On what basis should I appeal in the first instance? presumably just use the template on the Newbies thread?

Thanks as ever.

Fruitcake

You have a fair grasp of the situation. First you should identify the landowner. If it is railway land then it would normally be Network Rail or the train operating company (TOC). Ask both if the car park is a railway asset, and if railway byelaws apply.

Complain to the landowner and you MP.

Complain to Not So that the font is too small for you to read and therefore you require a version that can be read by a visually impaired person. They should have options for something like this including versions in Welsh and braille, although you just want one that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus can read.

Make the same complaint to the BPA.

If that doesn't work then appeal using the template in blue. Add a one liner that the NTK is not PoFA compliant and that you were not the driver. Make sure you don't miss the deadline.

If/when it is rejected, appeal to PoPLA using all the usual points from the third post of the NEWBIES, including not relevant land if it is a railway asset.

Fruitcake

I have tried blowing it up on my pooter, and tried using a magnifying glass, but it is still unreadable.

They can legitimately claim to be the landholder, or an agent of the landowner (if that is true), but they are making a false statement if they state they are the landowner, no matter how they may dress it up.

That should be the subject of another complaint to both them and the BPA.

Don't expect a satisfying response form either. There might have been a fuel supply shortage, but there is no such shortage of whitewash where the parking industry is concerned.

Coupon-mad

This will be easy as pie, though.  Lack of POFA wording and deadline kills this stone dead at POPLA.

A keeper appellant has 100% easy win here.

ihatetrump

Thanks @Fruitcake and @Coupon-mad - makes me feel confident!

They really do get my goat and I'd love to give them a black eye but without wasting too much of my time.

Here's the blown up part of their letter which you may be able to read a little easier.

Coupon-mad

Just a load of hot air about the Beavis case.  I am sure it fools plenty of victims into appealing as driver snd thinking this is a fine.

ihatetrump

Just wanting to follow up here as I can't see an answer in the Newbies thread (but there is a lot to read )

Having lodged my appeal with Smart - noting that they do not even acknowledge receipt via email, so I appealed it in duplicate and the 2nd time took screenshots - how long do I have to wait for them to respond? are there any requirements here?

Appreciate that it's a nailed on win, just want to clear it from my In-Tray

Fruitcake

I believe the PPC have 35 days to respond. The BPA CoP should confirm this.

D_P_Dance

 I'd love to give them a black eye   

You can, if they take it to court, and you win your case,  Read this.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

There is also the possibility of a complaint to Trading Standards.

Jenni_D

Fruitcake said:

I believe the PPC have 35 days to respond. The BPA CoP should confirm this.

Did it not used to be acknowledge within 14 days and appeal response within 35 days? (No idea if that has changed).

ihatetrump

@D_P_Dance - thanks - I fully expect them to deny my appeal (coz they're a bunch of Numpties) and then it will go to POPLA - they were out of date on their non-compliant PoFA NTK, driver is not named (it wasn't me) and so it will fail - can't see how I can lose at POPLA, so I don't expect to have my day in court with this one.