Driver details disclosed - Smart Parking Ltd

justcause

Here is a draft of my response, how does it sound?

POINT 1

This operator does not have a contract at this site to issue PCNs. The agreement schedule is incomplete, with redacted boxes and no mention of who the operator is or who the land owner is. It lacks crucial information such as payment methods, parking duration, exemptions, breach of contract consequences, and appeal processes.

Paragraph 14.1 of The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements, and the operator is required to provide strict proof of complete compliance:

‘Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.’

POINT 2

The evidence supplied for the site of the alleged contravention is incorrect, In schedule 1 it states 3 sites

Willen Lake North and south car park - MK15 0DS

Milton Keynes Peace Pagoda - MK15 0BA

The Tree cathedral - MK15 9ED

The alleged contravention took place at the Peace Pagoda MK15 0BA,  BUT the aerial shot the operator has provided as evidence is of the parking at Willen Lake North MK15 0DS, including all signage. 

In the case summary the operator has stated 

"on the 26/03/2025 vehicle with registration ... ... was captured by the cameras at Willen Lake car Park B (North) - Milton Keynes - MK15 0DS entering and exiting the car park"

The vehicle ... ... never entered the Willen Lake car park - MK15 0DS.

In my opinion the operator has deliberately tried to mislead myself and POPLA with its incorrect and inconsistent evidence, not so Smart.

Given the aforementioned reasons, I firmly believe that the Parking Charge Notice should not have been served and is consequently required to be cancelled. 

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

justcause

All submitted, will update with outcome in due course. 

justcause

**UPDATE**
So I received a response to my POPLA appeal and surprisingly they have rejected my appeal. Their response almost feels like the assessor didn't really read the points I put across. I can upload the response for you guys to see.

kryten3000

Result doesn't matter because you will not be paying.  Smart will pass to DCBL then DCB Legal will try a claim which when you defend they will discontinue.

Coupon-mad

justcause said:

**UPDATE**
So I received a response to my POPLA appeal and surprisingly they have rejected my appeal. Their response almost feels like the assessor didn't really read the points I put across. I can upload the response for you guys to see.

Yes please but add TEN paragraph breaks.

justcause

POPLA explanation

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

Signage on site advises motorists to pay on arrival. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a £80 parking charge notice.

The operator has provided a report which shows no payment was recorded to cover the appellants 27 minute duration of stay.

As no payment was made, a parking charge notice was issued.

The appellant states that the operator has no contract at the site to issue a PCN.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of a witness statement, and on reviewing this along with no evidence provided by the appellant to dispute the operators evidence, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.

The appellant explains that the vehicle has never entered the Willen Late car park North NK15 0DS. The site in questions operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

ANPR cameras capture vehicles entering and exiting the car park to calculate the time a vehicle has remained onsite. In this case the ANPR cameras have captured the appellant entering and exiting the Willen Lake car park.

In this case, whilst I recognise the appellant’s comments, they have not provided enough sufficient evidence to show that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable and the PCN location is correct.

 Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Very generic. ignore!