Smart Parking LTD / CST Law Parking Ticket

Arkarix

Hello there I'm new to this sort of thing I have been doing some reading over the past couple months hopefully not missed to much on what to do so here goes:

A few months ago I received a Ticket for a supposed over stay at an Smart parking LTD car park. The first letter I received however was not from them it was sent from another company demanding the keeper pay £160, I can't remember the name of them as I misplaced the letters. (can find if needed) Anyway I did some digging online and found this site and read what to do about them to which was read and observe the language and then ignore them which I had been doing.

A month or 2 later I started getting letters from a another company called 'CST Law' On behalf of Smart Parking LTD which had the same sort of info still didn't think much of it. However, the last letter I received is a Letter before claim with a 30 day limit from CST Law so I did some more digging on what to do and found the info about the SAR request which I sent off to them (using the template posted on here) and after a week they sent the requested information well some of it anyway. now this is where it gets a bit confusing on what to do next.

So the information they sent me was pictures of the car entering there car park at 19:18 and leaving at 20:24 and they are charging me an over stay of 66 minutes (this car park is £1 for 2 hours) which at first confused me, then I realised they must think I didn't pay at all but calling it an 'insufficient time paid' now I'm 99% sure I paid although I could have typed in my Reg incorrectly.

However on the SAR request even though I stated I wanted the PDT machine payments (they also have multiple of them in the car park) for the day they have not sent me that information I'm about to send another e-mail to the data protection officer of there company a direct request for that information but wanted to ask here first for anything else I should be doing at this point especially now as it seems they believe I didn't pay at all (I've never had a ticket in my life and I'm always careful of buying them)

Other information:

The car park notice boards say failure to pay may result in a £90 (but reduced if paid early) clearly not the first letter I got which was £160 (but maybe it got lost in the mail or wrong address as the car's address was wrong up till recently)

The PDT machines in the car park have no hard coded visually identification numbers that I could find (I do have pictures of the car park signs and machines if wanted) (it seems to be a ANPR carpark)

Hopefully I got most of the information down here but anything else I will happily provide (including Sar documents and pictures of the car park signs and photos of letters if will help)


Thank you for any information and help.

A.

Umkomaas

While we don't think that CST are really likely to issue court proceedings for Smart Parking (they're as rare as hens' teeth), and whether even their 'Letter Before Claim' is issued purely as a frightener, do robustly respond to it, following the guidance in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, including the requirement to put this on hold while you seek debt advice. 

Send this close to their current 30-day deadline for response, then you'll get a further 30 days - frustrate their rush to panic you into paying (which you won't be doing at any time, unless a Judge instructs you to).

Coupon-mad

Also just read the CST Letters group thread (search for it) and all the other exact same CST threads showing us that same letter already. 

Smart do try some claims but they don't use CST Law and can't hold a registered keeper liable, which you'll know already from where I name them in the NEWBIES thread.

Arkarix

Hi, Thank you for your replies I appreciate it.

Okay so I sent a e-mail to the CST law with the above mentioned templates of course edited and I requested more data from the data protection officer at smart parking requesting the VRN data from the PDT machine (please note in original request to them I even mentioned can be partial redacted) and they replied:

"Good morning,

 

Please note, I cannot provide you will a full report of the transactions on the date of contravention, as they contain details of other Vehicle Registration Marks.

However, I have looked to see if there is any transactions in regards to your full and correct VRM and I cannot locate any data or evidence and therefore cannot provide you with any further evidence."

so I can take this as a refusal? (as said in my main post I could have miss typed my Reg in the machine as I'm fairly certain I did pay and I have no mentioned that to them yet.

At this point is is just a wait and see if they indeed submit a court claim?

Thank you again

A. 

Coupon-mad

Reply and ask them to look for a keying error, as the BPA requires them to do.

patient_dream

In general CST LAW struggle with the facts.  Smart will just be using CST Law as a freebie debt collector and as said, to frighten you

And for your interest, you do not owe £160, this is just CST adding a fake 
The trouble with CST that they are living in the past because the fake add-ons have been BANNED by the government. Government has said they require the parking industry to abide by the spirit of the law. Clearly CST and SMART are ignoring the law

For CST, it probably means that another complaint about them should go to the SRA

And for Smart if (as they can do) take you to court, they will have to sign a statement of truth and if they add a fake amount when government has BANNED the fakes, they will face a judge who is in court to uphold the law

Let's see what happens next .... will CST put their head on the chopping block or indeed NOT SO SMART ..SMART

Are you in England/Wales or Scotland/Northern Ireland ?

D_P_Dance

Read this and complain to your MP.

Read what 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.

Arkarix

I am in England and I also did mention about the so called debt amount add on in an e-mail to smart parking and CST law which should also make them aware that I in fact know this information.

I will also complain to the SRA, hopefully it'll add to the ever stacking complaints against them.

I also did send a follow up e-mail to Smart about the potential keying error. Nothing yet though.

Thank you for taking the time in reading and replying to my problem the information here from you all is so useful.

A.

patient_dream

Arkarix said:

I am in England and I also did mention about the so called debt amount add on in an e-mail to smart parking and CST law which should also make them aware that I in fact know this information.

I will also complain to the SRA, hopefully it'll add to the ever stacking complaints against them.

I also did send a follow up e-mail to Smart about the potential keying error. Nothing yet though.

Thank you for taking the time in reading and replying to my problem the information here from you all is so useful.

A.

OK .... WELL LOOK, you have not received a letter before claim and if they pull that trick, they can be easily zapped and then it's off to the SRA
They trade as "Credit Style" and the SRA are well aware of them

What can we say about about Smart Parking, all mouth and no trousers ??
Even if they put on their trousers, their claims are so weak

Arkarix

Good morning,
So I got a reply from the Data protection officer when I requested they look for a keying error and the reply I got was this:

"Good morning,

Unfortunately, as Data Protection Officer I can only provide you with evidence that is your details and cannot make any assumptions to what may or may not be your data.

I would advise that you submit an appeal either via post or via our online system (at smart parking website) in order for our appeals team to investigate the matter further.

If you have any further queries in regards to your personal data, please do not hesitate to contact me."

Now the question is since they have already sent me a supposed "Letter Before Claim" should I actually do appeal the DPO is suggesting? They do not know who the driver was or rather its never been mentioned (I've seen the photos the driver is not identifiable).

I understand as mention by several and via other posts on here especially the CST LTC thread that the likelihood they will actually take court action is very slim and there claim will be rather week regardless sorry if the answer to this is obvious just never had to deal with such things before.

Thank you.

A.

Coupon-mad

Nope, but reply to the CST letter and say their client knows it was a 'keying error' not a breach that has any legitimate interest to pursue £100+.

Under the pre-action protocol, you are now formally requesting disclosure of the near-miss or partial VRM record that they know (or reasonably should know) on the balance of probabilities relates to your payment and not to any other car.

Add this:


I remind you that the PAP says:

"5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must – 

(a) provide the document or information; or 

(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request."

You have not done either.  Your clients haven't even bothered to include it in the SAR and are hiding behind the DPA by pretending they can't release a record that they know full well relates to me/my car, given the facts and timings.

This IS my data, relating to my car's identifiable payment.  I will report your client to the ICO if they keep refusing to release this line of data about me, and I will report CST Law to the ICO, CSA and SRA if you support this stance.