SMART PARKING FINE MANCHESTER AIRPORT

Pirellah

Hi,

I stayed in the Ibis at Manchester airport in July...my first time at the airport. I believe there are signs about charges, but to be honest, I didn't see them. Also, I was only dropping my keys off, then driving to their long stay car park round the corner, so wouldn't expect to pay for parking! I was there for a total of 18 minutes. This was on the 2nd July and the date issued was the 15th. I never received it until the 18th July. My question is :-

Do I need to pay this? I have seen a narrative to send to parking companies with regards to getting fined just driving through the drop off zone at Manchester airport. Can I use the same narrative for this?

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers.

DE_612183

It's not a fine - it's a invoice based on a perceived breach of contract.

In terms of parking - you were not parking you were loading / unloading ( even if only keys )

Pirellah

Thanks. So do you think I can argue that point?

Umkomaas

Smart Parking, especially now they have joined the IPC, won't roll over. But that doesn't mean you pay them. You only do that if a County Court Judge tells you that you must.

The APCOA drop off zone is a quite different situation with different legal connotations, so not relevant. 

You could try a standard initial appeal (blue text version from the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post) which will be rejected, then a 1-point appeal to the IAS, as seen in previous Smart cases appeals to POPLA, that Smart do not have landowner authority to issue PCNs at this location. 

Pirellah

Thank you!

Pirellah

Apologies I've had a look, but don't know where to find the NEWBIE FAQ announcements...I've searched it, but couldn't see any blue text versions?

Coupon-mad

Pirellah said:

Apologies I've had a look, but don't know where to find the NEWBIE FAQ announcements...I've searched it, but couldn't see any blue text versions?

Yes you do. Top of the forum on page one.

No need to search. See my signature.

Obviously, the first step is a complaint to the hotel manager, who can cancel the PCN.

Pirellah

Perfect...cheers

doubledotcom

Pirellah said:

This was on the 2nd July and the date issued was the 15th.

Besides the fact that the Ibis hotel is within the Manchester Airport boundary and therefore not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, as is common for the utter incompetents at (not so) Smart Parking, their Notice to Keeper (NtK) cannot be PoFA compliant, even if the land was relevant (it isn't) because it was not "given" within the relevant period.



If their NtK mentions PoFA or suggests Keeper liability, you should also submit a DVLA complaint as they are in breach of the KADOE contract.

Stake your ground and appeal with the following:

I am the registered keeper. Smart Parking cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, Smart Parking will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Manchester Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Manchester Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because Smart Parking is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for Smart Parking's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Pirellah

Brilliant - thanks for your help.

Bazarius

Where PoFA 2012 paragraph 9(2)(f) warning language appears on the reverse of the PCN, the notice fails to comply with paragraph 9(5) and 9(6) which mandates delivery within the statutory timeframe of 14 days. 

As this requirement has not been met, the notice is deemed to have been served late.  it amounts to a misrepresentation of authority and a clear breach of the Single Code of Practice.

 As a long-standing Approved Operator, they cannot plausibly claim ignorance, that this conduct attracts a minimum of two sanction points on a first offence.