Smart Parking - Parking Charge

NickyDe

This was my appeal just as an FYI

1. Lack of Landowner Authority

It is my understanding that Smart Parking does not hold a valid and current contract or agreement with the landowner at the site in question. Under the IPC Code of Practice (Section B, Clause 1.1), operators must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage and enforce parking. I request that Smart Parking produce a signed and dated landowner contract that specifically grants them authority to issue PCNs and pursue charges at this location. Without such documentation, this charge should be cancelled.

---

2. I Was Not the Driver

I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Smart Parking has failed to provide evidence that I was the driver, nor have they followed the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to establish keeper liability. Since no such transfer of liability has been legally established, I cannot be held liable for this charge as the registered keeper.

---

3. Inadequate Signage in Overflow Car Park

On the day in question, due to unusually high demand, vehicles were directed (verbally or by necessity) to park in an overflow area adjacent to the main car park. This overflow area did not contain any visible or legible signage indicating Smart Parking’s terms and conditions, nor was it clearly demarcated as being under enforcement. As such, there was no fair opportunity to review or consent to any contractual terms.

The IPC Code of Practice (Part E, Clause 19.1) states that signs must be “clear, unambiguous and placed in such a position that they are visible to those parking.” This was not the case.

Bazarius

This appeal should succeed at IAS.

Point 3 is irrelevant to the keeper and can or could have been disregarded entirely.

You may wish, if it’s still possible, to expand further on the operator’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically paragraphs 9(5) and 9(6), which set out strict timelines and conditions for establishing keeper liability.

The operator’s misrepresentation and attempt to invoke POFA, despite the notice being deemed given  outside the statutory timeframe, constitutes a significant breach of the Code of Practice. This breach carries  a minimum of two sanction points on first offence , minimum of 1 point thereafter . 

NickyDe

So..... Smart parking have responded to the appeal and written the following;



It seems like they have completely ignored the lack of land owner authority point and simply re stated there was adequate signage and I overstayed on time.

They have also attached a site map which shows a layout of the park in question and where certain pay machines and sigs are posted,(along with some other random photos of signs at the site) if helpful I can share these.

It seems like if I was to respond I would be merely repeating what I've already stated. 

Would it be best to just refer the case to arbitration straight away? 

ChirpyChicken

dont bother doing anything and get on with your life

Coupon-mad

Yep just update us with the IAS decision and if you lose, ignore the IAS and see Smart in court instead (they'll discontinue). Easier than the appeal was!

Whatever the result you won't be paying but we need you!

Please help to make a difference to the big picture: join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August.

It's vital the Government hears from people who wasted time trying the IAS, then received £170 threatograms with no genuinely impartial efforts made to fairly resolve valid disputes and no real intention to bring their cases before judges:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.