NTK PCN from Smart Parking for Bidford Big Meadow Park

hockeybeaver

Hi,
Newbie after some advice on an NTK I have received from Smart Parking regarding not paying for enough time (took 8 minutes to pay due to having to redownload the app and was 4 minutes over when leaving).  Unsurprisingly, they denied my initial appeal about there being a grace period to pay and when leaving but at least I didn't confirm who the driver was. 

As this NTK was sent 3 weeks after the Date of Contravention does this mean that I can appeal this to the IPC as being outside of the POFA 14 day time frame?  They also didn't honour the "discount" after my initial appeal was rejected after taking 22 days to reply to my appeal.  Is this another thing that can be mentioned when appealing to the IPC as this goes against their parking code of practice?

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Appeal as keeper to the IAS based on,  non compliance with Pofa2012 and no valid landowner contract 

hockeybeaver

Thanks for the reply.  Is "no valid landowner contract" just a standard thing to put in these cases and applies between myself and the landowner?

Gr1pr

Its standard in Smart Parking cases, hence why I mentioned it  ! Have a look at other recent Smart Parking cases 

The contract they dont like showing is between the landowner and Smart Parking,  not you 

Coupon-mad

The discount doesn't have to frozen and re-offered. Forget that.

Appeal to the kangaroo court of IAS with:

1. - lack of consideration period to arrive, park, walk over and read signage, download and then use the app (there is no template for IAS appeals). Go into detail on the difficulties ... but with the driver referred to in the third person of course. Quote from the Joint Code on consideration periods.

2 - POFA non compliance.

3 - No landowner authority (quote from the Joint Code clause 14). ALWAYS INCLUDE THIS POINT.

hockeybeaver

Thanks for the advice.  I'm not expecting much from the appeal judging by the posts I've read on here about their low appeal turnover rate

Coupon-mad

hockeybeaver said:

Thanks for the advice.  I'm not expecting much from the appeal judging by the posts I've read on here about their low appeal turnover rate

Same. We are with you on that!

But it's worth a go, because:

1 - Smart are new to the IPC and often offered no contest at POPLA. they don't have any experience of compiling compelling second stage appeal evidence;

2 - It wastes IAS time. Tests how useless they are. Rejection gives us evidence to show the government (if the joke decision comes back this month in time for the Public Consultation we need everyone to respond to); 

3 - You won't ever pay Smart anyway.