PCN confusing/unclear email

JayneTeapot

Hello

Received NTK re parking charge. Complaint send as letter received by keeper outside the 14 day period found on POFA 2012.

Complaint (they said "appeal rejected") rejected by parking company.

They state 'the provisions of the POFA schedule 4, relating to keeper liability do not apply on this occasion, this does not prevent us from pursuing the individual who was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the contravention'

I really don't understand this point. It also reads likeit should say "do apply" not "do not" The keeper is considering an email to POPLA. Parking co have not supplied a POPLA number

Help very much appreciated

cooldude255220

Can you post a suitably redacted copy of the Notice (i.e remove the keeper's name/address/ and the VRM, but leave the date of parking and the date of the notice).

Can you also please copy and paste their exact response to the complaint?

JayneTeapot

Thanks for looking cooldude255220

JayneTeapot

Eta- sorry: issued 5th but arrived 9th

Gr1pr

So its from Smart Parking, now an IPC AOS member, they offered the secondary appeal option to the IAS , not Popla ( popla is no longer an option with Smart Parking, which is why they didn't give you a popla code. )

What is the alleged breach ? And location. ?

cooldude255220

As Gr1pr says, Smart Parking are an IAS member, so you won't get a POPLA Code from them. If you wish to appeal, then it must be to the IAS.

The IAS are not known for being impartial or fair when dealing with appeals, and so if it comes down to an adjudicator making a decision, then they are likely to side with the operator.

However, I still think it's worth appealing, because:

1. You might be one of the 20-25% of cases which are conceded by the operator before it gets to adjudication;
2. If you are not, then you have cost the Operator a bit of money because they pay either way for adjudicated decisions
3. IAS decisions are not binding on the motorist, so if it doesn't go your way, you are in no worse a position than if you didn't appeal; and
4. You might get super-duper lucky and find that the IAS sides with you.

To that end, I've put together an appeal for you here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ipbzcuweodeeo3krttfek/ADwxzcGzhImmsyh3JrXsOAo?rlkey=4yfs3fj9qi8r4oa6aa258f05x&st=ykcse8e6&dl=0

Read it through, and pop your PCN number in the amber bit at the top of the Appeal document. Everything else should be ready to send.

If you do appeal, please come back and let us know how you get on either way.

JayneTeapot

Ah I see- when i googled Smart, it said BPA!

Thank you - they're not great odds though are they? Love the letter though.

What happens to the invoice if I lose? Does the amount increase?

1 in 4?? 🤪

Jame4ters

Losing at IAS is expected. It’s not independent. It’s not binding on the Keeper.

The odds are irrelevant. You won’t be paying

cooldude255220

If you lose, then you ignore all of the threatograms and come back here if you get a Letter Before Claim, and certainly if you get a Claim Form.

You then defend the Claim.

And then, as I understand it (although other Regulars here are probably better placed to advise) Smart Parking will invariably discontinue the Claim before it gets to the hearing. So you won't have to pay a penny.

Coupon-mad

But the odds of never paying this are pretty much nailed on at 100% - have you not read any other Smart threads?

James_Poisson

They state 'the provisions of the POFA schedule 4, relating to keeper
liability do not apply on this occasion, this does not prevent us from
pursuing the individual who was responsible for the vehicle at the time
of the contravention'

I really don't understand this point. It also reads likeit should say "do apply" not "do not"

They are trying to trap you in to disclosing who the driver was so they can pursue them, by wording it in a convoluted way (responsible for the vehicle at the time of the contravention) I hope you didn't fall for it?