Multiple Smart Parking Ltd Fines

ParkingFineFighter29

ok thanks for the advice. also I realised I may have caused some confusion - SP did request the evidence via email and I responded with said evidence (I thought they were referring to another charge for which they haven't requested any evidence yet - I am losing track I've got that many!)

and yes I thought he must be a beneficiary in some capacity. 

Kaizen2024

ParkingFineFighter29 said:

I am not clear Kaizen what you mean by not being transparent? I provided the requested evidence of being a gym user and this has been ignored by SP, hence the rejection. 

I will not be appealing to IAS. Thanks. 

Had you appealed as the driver for the other charges and submitted evidence of your gym membership when doing so, you would have been offered the £20 option for those also.

ParkingFineFighter29

I have. But they have chosen to ignore my evidence for one of the charges, stating that I never sent them the evidence, but I did. 

Your comments are not helpful. Please stop adding to my workload. 

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

ParkingFineFighter29 said:

I am not clear Kaizen what you mean by not being transparent? I provided the requested evidence of being a gym user and this has been ignored by SP, hence the rejection. 

I will not be appealing to IAS. Thanks. 

Had you appealed as the driver for the other charges and submitted evidence of your gym membership when doing so, you would have been offered the £20 option for those also.

What rubbish.  Evidence of gym membership - retrospective right to park should mean a full cancellation and nothing to pay.  And don't bother with "the operator has to recover their costs", not only is £20 a lot more than the real cost (£2.50 plus a second class bulk letter), these costs are fully absorbed by the multiple £60 and £100 charges paid by the unsuspecting motorist.

If parking companies were serious about proper parking management they would operate an approved list for locations like this with no need for regular users to enter their VRM on every visit. 

The terminal in reception simply sets the motorist up to fail and besides most don't even issue proper receipts which makes it very hard to prove that they were used at all, most convenient.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

ParkingFineFighter29 said:

I am not clear Kaizen what you mean by not being transparent? I provided the requested evidence of being a gym user and this has been ignored by SP, hence the rejection. 

I will not be appealing to IAS. Thanks. 

Had you appealed as the driver for the other charges and submitted evidence of your gym membership when doing so, you would have been offered the £20 option for those also.

You think that's OK?

Sorry but that's going this year. I'll make sure. The MHCLG won't allow that any more.

Kaizen2024

The scheme would have been brought in for a reason, be it unauthorised parking from non-gym members or the gym wanting to limit the time people spend in the gym (could be a small gym or oversubscribed).

If there are no consequences for failing to register a vehicle; there is no incentive to do so and the whole system becomes redundant.

The same applies for residential parking, remove the consequences (deterrent) of not displaying a permit and no one will.

I am going to presume the OP posted here to seek advice to help them ‘Money Save’, not become drawn into a discussion about the right and wrongs of parking management in general (and add to their workload); therefore, I wont be responding to the inevitable mud slinging rebuttals. 

Umkomaas

Kaizen2024 said:

The scheme would have been brought in for a reason, be it unauthorised parking from non-gym members or the gym wanting to limit the time people spend in the gym (could be a small gym or oversubscribed).

If there are no consequences for failing to register a vehicle; there is no incentive to do so and the whole system becomes redundant.

The same applies for residential parking, remove the consequences (deterrent) of not displaying a permit and no one will.

I am going to presume the OP posted here to seek advice to help them ‘Money Save’, not become drawn into a discussion about the right and wrongs of parking management in general (and add to their workload); therefore, I wont be responding to the inevitable mud slinging rebuttals. 

So what you're saying is the deterrent/consequence is a penalty for not complying?  Got it!

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

The scheme would have been brought in for a reason, be it unauthorised parking from non-gym members or the gym wanting to limit the time people spend in the gym (could be a small gym or oversubscribed).

If there are no consequences for failing to register a vehicle; there is no incentive to do so and the whole system becomes redundant.

The same applies for residential parking, remove the consequences (deterrent) of not displaying a permit and no one will.

I am going to presume the OP posted here to seek advice to help them ‘Money Save’, not become drawn into a discussion about the right and wrongs of parking management in general (and add to their workload); therefore, I wont be responding to the inevitable mud slinging rebuttals. 

i agree tHere should be consequences for abusing the facIities, but parking When you are a genuIne patron or resident of the premises is not an abuse.  the question remains how to distinguish those with the right to park from those taking unfair advantage. 

There are pLenty of ways to do this without penaLising tHese genUine car paRk users and fuLl cancEllation of a pcn  following retrospective proof is just one waY to achieve that. 

not issuing so many charges in the first place would be better still, but I'm not holding my breath.

Coupon-mad

Not running a system that places a daily burden and onerous risk on service users would be good.

If there are no consequences for failing to register a vehicle; there is no incentive to do so and the whole system becomes redundant.

@Kaizen2024 I totally disagree with that.

These systems set up gym users (and GP patients/visitors in particular in other cases) for a fall.

That's legally unfair (Consumer Rights Act - unfair burden and a disproportionate consequence) and additionally this onerous system not a valid justification to use camera surveillance in place of monitoring on foot.

ParkingFineFighter29

Thank you @Coupon-mad, @kryten3000 and @Umkomaas. Completely agree with everything you have said and couldn’t have put it better myself. 

Please let me know how I can get involved with addressing this issue and help to make a change, as I feel very strongly about this.   

@Kaizen2024 firstly you underestimate my motives, I am very interested in discussing the morals of parking management and their sham appeals process. 

Secondly, the best possible outcome for me without the stressful threat of court action, will be to pay SP £140 (on the assumption they are all reduced to £20). Make no mistake, this has all stemmed from using a gym and car park with frankly crap signage and a system thats set up to fail its users in the name of MAKING MONEY.

If you think this is a fair and just outcome , I am worried about you.

These cruel companies will continue to operate the way they do until the world is free of greed or more realistically, there is a change in the law. 

The level of corruption that I have unearthed throughout this debacle is inconceivable. It cannot be right that the director of the International Parking Community, who conduct the IAS appeals, is also a directing solicitor for Gladstones Solicitors who represents parking companies at millions of debt recovery hearings. It is no wonder that the success rate for appeals at IAS is so shamefully low. The conflict of interest this presents is an embarrassment to the legal industry and a light needs to be shone on it.