Smart Parking notice and Debt Recovery Plus

aquamarina64

Hello everyone, I have read the Newbie thread but I don't think my specific issue is covered (apologies if it is and I have missed it).
I work for a large organisation which has partner organisations alongside it under one "umbrella". Back in September 2023 my car was in the workshop and I needed to get to a meeting the other side of the county. My own organisation doesn't have pool cars any more so one of our partner organisations which does have pool cars kindly offered to let me use one to get to my meeting. When I arrived at the meeting I had to input my car registration into a monitor in their reception. In December (so three months later) the partner organisation received a parking notice from Smart Parking. The partner organisation's transport office originally contacted another employee before they realised that staff member had cancelled their car booking and the car was loaned to me. As it's local to me I picked up the parking notice from the organisation's transport office and could see the notice is issued to the name of the organisation (the keeper of the vehicle). 
At that point I should have got in touch with the meeting venue to ask what had happened when I input the car registration onto their monitor on the day of the meeting, but (and this is no excuse just an explanation), my husband had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer and my head was all over the place, so I completely forgot. 
I did do some research on this forum however and I believe I am correct in saying the advice was to do nothing. 
Now another three months has gone by and the partner organisation has received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus, still in the name of the partner organisation. The letter is dated 29 February 2024 but the transport office only told me today, so I have been up and collected it. 
The amount they now want is £160 and it's a fierce looking letter threatening legal recovery, an increase in the amount to include court fees, and stating that my access to mortgages, loans, credit cards and car finance may be affected. 
The letter gives a 7 day cut off to pay or set up a payment plan - but as it's dated 29 February and I only received it today, those 7 days have expired.
What is the best thing to do please? Sorry for the novel!

nopcns

Tell the partner organisation transport office not to pay anything. Explain to the that this is not a "fine" from an authority. It is a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract.

They should email (not so) Smart Parking and give them your details as the day to day keeper of the vehicle and they should re-issue the NtK to you, in your name. They should let (not so) Smart Parking know that if they do not re-issue the NtK to you, in your name, they will be reported to the BPA. They should not say you were the driver at the time because they do not know that. You were the keeper at the time.

Once you receive the re-issued NtK in your name, it can be appealed as necessary. Nobody on here pays (not so) Smart Parking.

It is completely safe to ignore the debt collector letter. They are using scary words to try and get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up. They are a third party to any alleged breach of contract between the driver and (not so) Smart Parking. They cannot do anything except huff and puff.

aquamarina64

nopcns said:

Tell the partner organisation transport office not to pay anything. Explain to the that this is not a "fine" from an authority. It is a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract.

They should email (not so) Smart Parking and give them your details as the day to day keeper of the vehicle and they should re-issue the NtK to you, in your name. They should let (not so) Smart Parking know that if they do not re-issue the NtK to you, in your name, they will be reported to the BPA. They should not say you were the driver at the time because they do not know that. You were the keeper at the time.

Once you receive the re-issued NtK in your name, it can be appealed as necessary. Nobody on here pays (not so) Smart Parking.

It is completely safe to ignore the debt collector letter. They are using scary words to try and get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up. They are a third party to any alleged breach of contract between the driver and (not so) Smart Parking. They cannot do anything except huff and puff.

Thank you so much for your advice! Does it matter that I only had the car for one day while mine was in the garage? I'm just thinking would I still be the "keeper" of the vehicle? Sorry if this is an obvious question. 
And will it not matter that six months has passed? I'm actually quite surprised that the partner organisation's management aren't jumping up and down to me about it to be honest, it was the transport assistant that gave me the letter and I got the impression from our conversation this happens all the time.

nopcns

It is a fact that on the day, you were the "day to day" keeper. The company received the NtK because they are the registered keeper. The registered keeper, the day to day keeper, the hirer (for a hire car or leased car) and the driver are all separate entities in civil law.

NtK has been issued to the registered keeper because of an alleged breach of contract between the driver and the parking company. Without seeing the NtK, we don't know whether the parking company are relying on PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. If they are not or have failed to follow the strict requirements of PoFA, they can only hold the driver liable. They have no idea who the driver is unless the keeper has identified themselves to also be the driver. They are not allowed to assume or infer that the keeper is also the driver.

If you could show us the front and back of the NtK, suitably redacted but leave all dates showing, we would have a better idea. However, at this moment in time, you are not a named party to the contract allegedly breached in the NtK, which is just a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company. Until the company tell the parking company that you were the day to day keeper on the date of the alleged contravention, there is not much you can do except pay it, which is not what is advised. The company cannot say you were the driver because they do not know that unless they witnessed you at the location breaching the terms of the contract.

Fruitcake

Your case is covered by the information in the NEWBIES.

For you to deal with this, you need a Notice to Hirer from the PPC in your own name. Whoever received the NTK in the first place on behalf of the company should send the relevant edna basher letter you will find in the NEWBIES, or give you permission to do so. There are three to choose from. One is for Fleet Managers. Read all three, pick the one that fits best, then either pass it to the company employee currently dealing with it, or obtain permission for you, the day to day keeper to deal with it instead. 
As already advised, do ensure that nobody is daft enough to pay it, nor daft enough to deduct money from your salary if they are stupid enough not to understand the PoFA, a law that all companies that own or lease vehicles should have been familiar with since 2012.

Note that Smart Parking do not normally send PoFA compliant NTKs, so the company/registered keeper can never be held liable.

Debt collectors are powerless and can do absolutely nothing except send poor quality bog-paper. They cannot instigate court proceedings. They cannot come to your place of work or your home and clamp your budgie if you don't pay. They cannot send bailiffs.
I am told that shredded, debt collector letters make quite good hamster bedding, and from personal experience, they make good quality fire-lighters.

Coupon-mad

still in the name of the partner organisation

OK this can be rewound to allow you to appeal.   Do not pay and do not identify yourself as the driver.

The partner organisation simply complains (NOT APPEAL) to Smart Parking like this:


Dear Sirs,

This is a formal complaint that Smart Parking took too long to notify us of an extortionate 'parking charge' and a complaint about various breaches of the BPA Code of Practice (see below).

Secondly, it is also a formal transfer of liability notice and you must also take note that the person who was issued with this courtesy pool vehicle has not been afforded any opportunity to appeal yet, so you must now rewind the process.

Our firm provided the courtesy pool vehicle to be used by partner firm employees for a specific meeting at the venue.  We believe that the numberplate WAS provided by inputting it into the reception screen but this is a matter for the keeper/lessee (not our company who are only the registered keeper).

Liability must immediately be transferred to the lessee who is:

Your name
Your address

and they must now be sent their own notice, with debt collection being paused.

The BPA CoP (Feb 2024) now includes a new clause and you are in breach if you fail to do this in accordance with new clause 23.8, which says:

23.8 You must have a process for considering appeals received outside of the normal 28-day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes – where the addressee only discovers and can show that a parking charge notice has been issued in their name after the 28- day period the period must restart and any enforcement, excluding court action, must be paused.

Notwithstanding the above mandatory Code clause, the law also says you MUST now take the PCN up with the named lessee and cease writing to us. We have fully complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 and liability is hereby transferred to the lessee.

Both the lessee and ourselves reserve the right to report Smart Parking to the BPA if you fail to deal properly with this complaint.

Yours faithfully


PARTNER COMPANY NAMED ON THE PCN

nopcns

Just querying whether the OP should be referred to as the "hirer/lessee". They were, as far as I can make out from the original post, simply an additional "day to day keeper".

Coupon-mad

I think 'lessee of a courtesy pool car' is better to make a parking firm transfer liability.

There is no phrase 'day to day keeper' in the POFA so I was deliberately avoiding that made-up forum phrase and aligning it to POFA words.

Coupon-mad

aquamarina64 said:

...When I arrived at the meeting I had to input my car registration into a monitor in their reception. In December (so three months later) the partner organisation received a parking notice from Smart Parking. 

Now another three months has gone by and the partner organisation has received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus, still in the name of the partner organisation. The letter is dated 29 February 2024 but the transport office only told me today, so I have been up and collected it. 
The amount they now want is £160 and it's a fierce looking letter threatening legal recovery, an increase in the amount to include court fees, and stating that my access to mortgages, loans, credit cards and car finance may be affected. 
The letter gives a 7 day cut off to pay or set up a payment plan - but as it's dated 29 February and I only received it today, those 7 days have expired.
What is the best thing to do please? Sorry for the novel!

Please earn yourself £60 and help regulate the parking industry.  This is an official thing and MSE Towers has agreed I can share it...

Short notice but do the survey now (and then a short & friendly video call next week) to tell the Government's consultancy outsourced firm your experience of wanting to appeal but being told "tough, it's too late. Pay up or else".

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6528490/official-dluhc-paid-research-have-you-ever-appealed-a-parking-charge-notice#latest

URGENT - help us push the regulation of the parking industry and new appeals service over the line.

There should be appeal (ADR) available at ALL stages to keep cases out of court.