SCS Law & Smart Parking

Thanks to everyone for your advice. I have edited my reply. Draft below. I will get this sent tomorrow -

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx.

You haven’t answered my question - "please can you confirm how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations to my own, but for which there is no record of them entering or leaving the car park on the day/at the time in question?". You have instead sent the transaction report. I know this is incomplete because Smart Parking has already admitted there was a ticket bought for a car registration that wasn't in the car park that day. It was very similar to my car’s registration. This report does not contain the similar registration number.

Please confirm the details of tickets sold to vehicles for which there is no record of the vehicle entering or leaving the car park on the entire day in question and provide the time and registration information.

You have only provided data from the supposed time entering the car park until 11 minutes before the supposed leaving time. The date and time used to produce the list of transactions may not be accurate e.g. the clocks went forward an hour at the end of March (approximately 6 weeks before the alleged offence). If the clocks on all the equipment weren’t updated then the data produced in the report would be for the wrong period of time. Any time discrepancies could hide a valid transaction.

Please confirm when the ticket machines and ANPR cameras were serviced and/or synchronised with each other and the date/time checked for accuracy in the build up to the day in question.

The photos provided, although clear this time, aren't accompanied with a date and time stamp to show when they were taken. This doesn't prove the signs were present or readable at the time of the alleged offence and without a date stamp the likelihood cannot be determined.

Please confirm exactly when all of the photos provided were taken.

In the Beavis case it was a free car park with limited staying times to encourage a churn of customers and increase the opportunities for genuine customers to park there. Matalan Cheltenham’s car park is for anyone to use, not just Matalan customers. Some of the additional signs in the car park highlight this fact "Have you paid & displayed? Refund for Matalan customers". This contradicts your statement "controlling parking to ensure parking for Matalan customers". A genuine control of parking for Matalan customers would be accompanied by the car park being for customers only. It isn't, so Smart Parking’s only potential loss is if someone didn't pay for a ticket. A ticket was paid for and displayed in my car well within ten minutes of entering the car park. Smart Parking have conceded a ticket was bought for a registration number very similar to my own that wasn’t in the car park. This was established within a few minutes during the first phone call with them after receiving the PCN. This highlighted that there is no loss to them and therefore the penalty has no legitimate purpose. Smart Parking still chose to proceed and are being intentionally punitive.

Did you and Smart Parking enjoy the Parliamentary debate recently, exposing the outrageous conduct of debt collectors and robo-claim solicitors cosily nestling with the rogue parking firms, where Smart Parking were named and shamed? If you proceed, I will bring the will of Parliament to the attention of the court to show the conduct of this reportedly 'out of control' rogue ticketer who have been sacked by Asda and Matalan in the past year alone, for aggressively ticketing customers.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) “In my view, that is an outrageous scam, and it is still going on. It enables Smart Parking to issue tickets and therefore collect fines.”

Peter Wishart “That car park is operated by the John Wayne of all the cowboys, the appalling and loathed Smart Parking, a company that blights communities throughout Scotland, including Inverness, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). It distributes fines like confetti, and its so-called smart technology seems almost designed to frustrate motorists and harvest fines from them.”

Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) “I also want to highlight the firms of solicitors that work with those companies. We might refer to such firms as “roboclaims” firms, and they often have a close and cosy relationship with the parking companies.”

I will be complaining to my MP to ensure their backing to end this “scam”.

I too expect a reply within 7 days to provide the information requested and/or informing me this matter has been concluded.