Smart Parking switch from POPLA to ISA

cityfan63

Apologies, I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I have tried searching and cannot find what I'm looking for.

A couple of years ago we had some tickets from Smart Parking for marginally overstaying the paid for parking time. At that time we used this response as suggested on here and had them all dismissed.

this is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus Trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NTK does not comply with POFA. As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @POPLA . Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw

We had another ticket recently so I used this again as I did not realise Smart have moved away from POPLA to ISA. This appeal has been rejected(which makes sense considering the change). Is there anywhere to go from here? I have been researching and see that ISA are significantly more likely to side with Smart than POPLA were.

Gr1pr

IAS , not ISA , they moved from the BPA AOS membership to the IPC membership last year, so no popla

Dont bother with the IAS, ignore them for now

Come back to this thread if you receive an LBC or a Money Claim within the next 6 years

cityfan63

Thanks Gr1pr, really appreciate your reply and apologies for the typos.

Reading their letter these are a couple of sections that seem notable;

You were also invited to provided us with the driver’s full name and current postal address, if you were not the
driver at the time of the parking event.
If you wish to provide driver details, please send them via email to:
COD@smartparking.com
Failure to provide these details, will result in Smart Parking using the provisions under POFA, 2012 to
pursue you, the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance of the PC.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two
options, you can pay or appeal further with IAS – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, (IAS) using the instructions
below. Please note, should you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently rejected,
the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PC will be
due.
If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to visit the website, https://www.theias.org/
where further details of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from the date of this
letter to submit an appeal to IAS.

I take it from your response that you'd advise to just do nothing at this stage. If we do this then would they likely send a few more letters before maybe passing to a debt collection agency?

We did marginally overstay the parking time(by 11 minutes on an all day ticket so annoyingly 1 minute beyond the margin of 10 minutes) so they are technically correct. With that being said it seems that even if it got to a LBC stage they could still only ask for the fine amount, rather than add on additional fees. Is the idea here that they will ultimately try and threaten but not pursue it if you ignore as it wouldn't be worth their time and effort?

Coupon-mad

With that being said it seems that even if it got to a LBC stage they could still only ask for the fine amount, rather than add on additional fees. Is the idea here that they will ultimately try and threaten but not pursue it if you ignore as it wouldn't be worth their time and effort?

No and no.

AND it isn't a fine!

They will add £70 but it is a false fee.

And they will sue you, using DCB Legal, but that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT to end it! If you don't know why, read @Umkomaas thread of DCB discontinuances.

😀

patient_dream

The reason SMART changed to the IPC is that the IAS appeals system is simply a kangaroo style court who favours IPC members ,,,, in other words A LOAD OF JUNK

SMART asking for drivers details is just phishing and you are under no obligation to do so

As said above, SMART use DCBL, THE FAMOUS CHICKEN OUT LEGAL

If DCBL are involved, they will add a scam amount, normally £70 BUT that is a feeble attempt of DOUBLE RECOVERY. they know it, we know it, the courts know it. They will try it on and on and on until they discontinue

GAME ON …. you play the game with this bunch

Le_Kirk

Those times they state are for consideration period (before parking) and a grace period (after parking) are MINIMUM periods but they always seem to forget that (how convenient); it could be that there was a traffic jam at the exit of the car park on that day which caused a longer exit time than normal.