Smartparking

bill12345678 · 13 September 2018 at 7:58PM

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5) Failure to show evidence of reliable ANPR system

Also SmartParking have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
SmartParking has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

A correctly calibrated ANPR system and associated mobile phone software used to pay for parking should be able to know if a registration plate being entered by the customer using the car park has in fact entered the car park. In this case a payment was made for a car registration incorrectly entered and therefore never existed on the ANPR system however a payment for the correct amount covering the period stayed was still accepted. In these circumstances when a number plate entered does not match up with the ANPR system a warning should be generated by the system. A simple character recognition software or even a human being could then attempt to match the number plate recorded by the ANPR to the most closely matching number plate registered and paid for by the customer. To ensure accuracy of this simple yet effective measure the time the customer entered the car park could be correlated with the time the payment was made.

I would like to draw your attention to the following case where a motorist received a parking ticket as a result of them entering their registration number in wrong

Newcastle County Court, B3GF344V Park With Ease Ltd -v- Mr D

The judge ruled - that the case hinged on whether the motorist had paid or not, and that the burden of proof lay with Park With Ease to show that the motorist hadn't. As he felt they hadn't been able to show that without any doubt the claim was dismissed.

Fruitcake · 13 September 2018 at 8:01PM

As has already been mentioned more than once, are you sure that the correct VRN was not entered? You only have a scammers word that it wasn't. Perhaps the driver did put it in correctly but there is a problem with the scammers system that has corrupted the data.
You should put the scammers to strict proof that there allegations are true.

Your point about 'phone apps is irrelevant. The 'phone is another type of payment machine so is already covered by the signage.

bill12345678 · 13 September 2018 at 8:24PM

Thanks for that input.
To be honest I just need to know if it would be a winner at POPLA as it stands as NTK. I may well add more about proof of reg number but right now I just want to get it over with.

Umkomaas · 13 September 2018 at 9:32PM

bill12345678 wrote: »

Thanks for that input.
To be honest I just need to know if it would be a winner at POPLA as it stands as NTK. I may well add more about proof of reg number but right now I just want to get it over with.

But we can't tell you that - only POPLA can.

6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keepers address within the relevant period which is highlighted as a total of 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a POFA compliant NTK, in accordance with paragraph 9 they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeperliability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory documents with paragraph 9 wording and prescripted warning about 'keeperliability' were not properly given.

You need to spell this out to the POPLA assessor with precise dates. Don't expect former nail technicians, call centre drones or budding soft !!!!!! authors to not need significant help in working this out.

bill12345678 · 13 September 2018 at 9:37PM

Thanks for that i'll update it with the dates when I submit I just didn't want to put too much info that could possibly identify who it's from though they must get hundreds a day!
Other than that do you think I should submit this? Sorry to sound so negative but just want to see an end to this.

Coupon-mad · 14 September 2018 at 12:05AM

Yes.

How many times do people need to be reassured, that if they have NEVER said who was driving, and appeal to POPLA as the registered keeper only, with a case against:

Smart
Highview
CEL (Civil Enforcement)
APCOA
and
CP Plus

(to name just five 'non-POFA' parking firms who can only hold drivers liable)...

...you WILL WIN.

Just be careful to check you haven't added any words that say 'I did this/I didn't see the sign...' as we can't check every word of every POPLA appeal!

bill12345678 · 14 September 2018 at 5:42PM

Just to be 100% when I submit is it definitely under "other" and not "I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking"

Thank you

Umkomaas · 14 September 2018 at 6:05PM

All POPLA appeals should be submitted as 'Other', all other options have 'trap' written on them!

bill12345678 · 14 September 2018 at 6:16PM

Thank you. appeal is now submitted. How long does it normally take?

Umkomaas · 14 September 2018 at 8:44PM

bill12345678 wrote: »

Thank you. appeal is now submitted. How long does it normally take?

Depends on how quickly the PPC responds to what you've put in your POPLA appeal. They have 21 days, then you have a further 7 days to rebut.

So that's a month (max), then POPLA need to read it all and come to a decision. Maybe a week, depending on 'business'. Do the math!

Smartparking

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free