NTK PCN from Smart Parking for Bidford Big Meadow Park

Coupon-mad

Oh this is so funny!

We knew Smart would struggle with the IAS ... but this one is hilarious!

Point all the above out to the IAS.

hockeybeaver

Just sorting my comments out now.  It also states on the Bidford Parish Council website that Great Meadow is public land.  Can I also point this out as they state that the contract is for private land?

hockeybeaver

Coupon-mad said:

Oh this is so funny!

We knew Smart would struggle with the IAS ... but this one is hilarious!

Point all the above out to the IAS.

Thanks for everyone's support so far with this. This is what I have to reply with, do you think I have missed anything?

************

I would like to point out a number of factual inaccuracies in the Operators statement:

1) The Operator has not provided any proof of who was the driver at the time of the case in question and as such can only persue a claim against the registered keeper.

2) The Notice To Keeper can't have been sent on the 9th July as claimed by the Operator as the Operator's own evidence shows that this was issued on the 11th July.

3) The Operator has stated that a "ticket" was issued on the 22nd June.  There has been no previous mention of this.  There are no parking attendants at the site - as the Operator themselves have stated that the site is solely controlled by ANPR cameras - and no ticket was applied to the windscreen of the car in question.  I can only assume that the Operator has written this so that they think they would comply with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, as the only ticket that has actually been issued in this case is the Notice To Keeper, which was issued on the 11th July and received on the 15th July.

4) The Operator states "We can confirm the keeper details were provided by the DVLA on 08/07/2025 and the PC was promptly issued on 09/07/2025. Smart Parking Limited have no hold over the postal service." which they have already proven to be incorrect on the evidence they have provided as the date of issue on the NTK shows the 11th July.  They also are in fact required to be beholden to the Post Office postal times as declared in POFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9.6 (shown below for clarification)

5) The Operator states "Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that as per the BPA the Registered Keeper details can be requested up to 28 days after the date of contravention, to which we can confirm these were requested within the 28-day time frame." which is in contravention to these statements from the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9.4-6

    (4)The notice must be given by—

    (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant     period; or

    (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

    (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

6) The clear signage photographs kindly provided by the Operator can all be clearly seen to state that the car park in question is not in fact run by Smart Parking and is instead run by Local Parking Security Ltd with Company Number - 4125238 which in fact belongs to Easy Parking Solutions Limited.  Whilst it is true that Smart Parking did takeover a company called Local Parking Security Ltd, the registered company number (15569146) does not match that shown on the signage photographs provided.

7) As Table B.1 of the parking code of practice states, the Minimum consideration period and grace period are 5 and 10 minutes respectively making 15 minutes which would be longer than the period the Operator are claiming was over stayed.  The grace period is actually set out as stated in the contract between the Operator and land owner and is set per each site that the Operator is meant to have a contract with.  The code of practice merely sets the expectation that this will include a minimum of 10 minutes.  I would ask again that this contract is provided so that the consideration and grace periods can be shown in clear detail.  Part B.2 of the standards also state "Parking operators must register with the ATA to which they belong the consideration periods they intend to apply to individual sites before issuing a parking charge."  Can this be shown to have been done by the Operator?

8) The Operator states "As the site in question is monitored by ANPR cameras, the system is able to assign a payment according to the duration in which a motorist has remained on site, this includes back dating a payment if a motorist was to purchase a ticket at the end of their stay. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the motorist remained on site for 192 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice."  When purchasing a ticket via RingGo, as was done on this occasion, there is no option to start the session from when the ANPR cameras say the session started and so the purchased ticket starts from this period for the duration selected.  As such, any person purchasing a ticket in this manner could therefore only assume that they have until the end of this session in which to park and as such, would have the grace period added at the end of this session to then leave the site if required.  If the Operator were to change this then it would make it clearer for all concerned and stop this issue arising again in the future.  Unless it is the Operator's intention to deliberately mislead drivers in an attempt to generate revenue for themselves?

Coupon-mad

Change this:

6) The clear signage photographs kindly provided by the Operator can all be clearly seen to state that the car park in question is not in fact run by Smart Parking and is instead run by Local Parking Security Ltd with Company Number - 4125238 which in fact belongs to Easy Parking Solutions Limited.  Whilst it is true that Smart Parking did takeover a company called Local Parking Security Ltd, the registered company number (15569146) does not match that shown on the signage photographs provided.

to this:

6) The signage photographs kindly provided by the Operator can all be clearly seen to state that the car park in question is not in fact run by Smart Parking and is instead run by Local Parking Security Ltd with a Company Number - 4125238 - displayed on those signs, which in fact belongs to Easy Parking Solutions Limited.  Whilst it seems that Smart Parking did take over a company called Local Parking Security Ltd, the registered company number (15569146) does not match that shown on the signage photographs. Even if it did, the contract is offered by a completely different limited company. This is a separate legal entity and a limited company cannot be argued to be a trading name of Smart Parking, in case the operator switches horses to try that.


(personally I'd make this point 1.).

Did you miss out the point you said, that the signs are also out of date? You said it was now £3 not £2 minimum tariff. Prove that with a photo, as long as the new signs don't say Smart Parking!

hockeybeaver

Thanks for updating that point.  I was just keeping the order in the points that they made them to make it easy for the IAS to (hopefully) see how many things they've just made up. 

Yes I left the point out about the signs being out of date as I'm sure the new ones will say Smart Parking on them!  I haven't been back to check them though.

Coupon-mad

While you wait for a joke IAS decision or for Smart to throw in the towel, please do the government's Public Consultation on or before 5th September (end of next week)!

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and you may not be that familiar with the worst conduct of this scam industry, we get that. But with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread, covering ideas for supporting evidence for newbie comments on all the questions, if you agree with our stance.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!

hockeybeaver

Coupon-mad said:

While you wait for a joke IAS decision or for Smart to throw in the towel, please do the government's Public Consultation on or before 5th September (end of next week)!

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and you may not be that familiar with the worst conduct of this scam industry, we get that. But with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread, covering ideas for supporting evidence for newbie comments on all the questions, if you agree with our stance.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!

Got all the way to the end and pressed submit and then it gave me an error message!  Probably should have saved it as I went along

Coupon-mad

Thanks for the tip! I will save as I go.