Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Paddyswag
    • By Paddyswag 11th Apr 18, 5:26 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Paddyswag
    Going forward
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:26 PM
    Going forward 11th Apr 18 at 5:26 PM
    Hello to you all,

    I have had a look at the previous threads etc, but cannot find anything reference what is classed as evidence and what is not?

    My situation is as follows,

    Yesterday 10th April i received a Parking charge notice from "Smart Parking", for an alleged breach of terms on 22/03/2018.......etc. The letter was dated 06/04/2018.

    It shows my vehicle entering said carpark at 09:08:22 and exiting at 16:59:45.

    The vehicle visited the carpark twice that day The Nisa delivery lorry(delivers every Thursday morning) was in and it parks right in front of the camera.



    The van then went back to carpark later that day about the 16.55.

    So what i am basically asking is, if it comes to going to court(obviously) worst case scenario) would this be sufficient evidence to prove my innocence so to speak.

    I also noticed that they hit the 15 day target just with the dated letter.

    kind regards
    Last edited by Paddyswag; 11-04-2018 at 5:58 PM.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 18, 5:32 PM
    • 6,713 Posts
    • 5,955 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:32 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:32 PM
    What date were you in the car park?

    Who are the car park company?

    Have you complained to any of the retailers, e.g. the coffee shop, about this?

    You now need to read post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to see the game you are now caught up in.

    Send the template appeal to the PPC. No need to add anything. Just send it as it is.

    Yes, of course evidence of being elsewhere during that time is valuable evidence. Do not lose it.
    .
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 11th Apr 18, 5:33 PM
    • 2,266 Posts
    • 4,023 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:33 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:33 PM
    Search for "double dip" and you'll find all the threads you need for your case.

    Or write back and tell them to swivel.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Paddyswag
    • By Paddyswag 11th Apr 18, 5:40 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Paddyswag
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:40 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:40 PM
    Thanks for responses have read the threads and understand the game, the date i was in (sorry thought i had included it)date of contravention was 22/03/2018.

    i was just after a clue on the strength of my evidence really
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    • 7,192 Posts
    • 9,524 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    Well done for having the evidence and being able to prove
    where you were at the times stated.

    This is called double dipping and the times stated came
    from an ANPR camera

    These cameras, well known to be cr*p and not suitable
    for purpose

    You have the proof now call out the hand of Smart and
    request the logs of the ANPR for that day.
    They are reluctant to provide this info

    However, if you have the proof you say, if this ever went
    to court, very doubtful, you would win.

    Smart are known scammers so play their game, appeal
    and provide proof and if they reject it, you can then
    further appeal to POPLA
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Castle
    • By Castle 11th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    • 1,649 Posts
    • 2,220 Thanks
    Castle
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    Thanks for responses have read the threads and understand the game, the date i was in (sorry thought i had included it)date of contravention was 22/03/2018.

    i was just after a clue on the strength of my evidence really
    Originally posted by Paddyswag
    If the contravention date was 22/3/18 then it must arrive by the 14th day after that; namely by 5th April. Therefore, the latest it can be dated is 3rd April, so your NTK fails to comply with the POFA2012 requirements.


    So edit any mention of the Driver from your first post
    Last edited by Castle; 11-04-2018 at 5:49 PM.
    • Paddyswag
    • By Paddyswag 11th Apr 18, 5:59 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Paddyswag
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:59 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:59 PM
    Is that better ?

    regards
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 18, 6:00 PM
    • 6,713 Posts
    • 5,955 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:00 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:00 PM
    Check here for the likelihood of court action:


    Nearly a million tickets issued in over three years, but only 36 court appearances.

    Of course, no-one can predict the future.
    .
    • Castle
    • By Castle 11th Apr 18, 6:06 PM
    • 1,649 Posts
    • 2,220 Thanks
    Castle
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:06 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:06 PM
    Is that better ?

    regards
    Originally posted by Paddyswag
    Yes...thanks
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 11th Apr 18, 7:43 PM
    • 10,400 Posts
    • 9,647 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    If the contravention date was 22/3/18 then it must arrive by the 14th day after that; namely by 5th April. Therefore, the latest it can be dated is 3rd April, so your NTK fails to comply with the POFA2012 requirements.


    So edit any mention of the Driver from your first post
    Originally posted by Castle
    Absolutely right.
    Please read http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted.

    In particular, section 9 beginning "9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met."

    Don't be put off by the legal wording. Basically it says that the Registered Keeper can not be held liable if a charge relying on ANPR is not in the RK's hands within 15 days. But you have to be very careful not to say who was driving, so no "I" or "me", just use "the keeper" and "the driver" as appropriate

    The 22nd March to the 6th April date of the NtK is way outside that timescale.

    That will be your winning appeal point - you don't need any other as long as
    (a) the PPC is not claiming to have stuck a windscreen ticket on your car and it is a charge based solely on photographic (usually ANPR) evidence
    (b)..and this is vital - you do not admit who was driving. If you do, you can forget the "golden ticket appeal" I have just outlined.

    Search this forum for "out of time" for other threads similar to yours.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 11th Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    • 2,572 Posts
    • 3,201 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    you need to understand the nature of the beast ....


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

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.


    Ralph
    • Castle
    • By Castle 11th Apr 18, 8:44 PM
    • 1,649 Posts
    • 2,220 Thanks
    Castle
    That will be your winning appeal point - you don't need any other as long as
    (a) the PPC is not claiming to have stuck a windscreen ticket on your car and it is a charge based solely on photographic (usually ANPR) evidence
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    If there had been a NTD, then the NTK would have been too early to comply with paragraph 8 of POFA.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Apr 18, 9:44 AM
    • 9,095 Posts
    • 8,809 Thanks
    The Deep
    If they were to take this to court, they would struggle. It is a very common fault with this equipment. Read some of these

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=parking+pranskster+double+dip&form=EDNTHT &mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=9c23d36e75a940c396e0ed92612c4b e1&PC=ACTS&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=undefined&sc=0-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=9c23d36e75a940c396e0ed92612c4be1

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Apr 18, 1:50 PM
    • 2,007 Posts
    • 3,344 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You have a common problem, which is whether to defend as keeper or driver.


    If nobody can evidence you were driving, you have a keeper's defence under POFA because your NTK was delivered late.


    However, you actually have a very good driver's defence: namely that you weren't there between those times. previous posts refer to you being able to prove it, but I don't see any mention that you can prove you were elsewhere (perhaps you've deleted to avoid id'ing the driver). But by claiming you were the keeper and not the driver means you can't run this defence.


    Personally, if Smart is POPLA I'd defend as keeper and deny driving.


    However, if POPLA isn't an option for you, or if for any reason POPLA fails, then you are in the no-man's land of waiting for Smart to issue proceedings and being chased by debt collectors. During this period and in any proceedings, I'd defend this as driver by producing evidence of where you were during the day, that you went there twice and where you were in between, plus you are aware that the NISA delivery lorry is there on Thursdays and parks in front of the camera - all of which are clear evidence that you were not parked between the hours claimed.


    Turning to the evidence. If you have an iPhone and have google maps turned on, you can access the data from the relevant day to show exactly where you went and when. I don't know how to do this, but someone did explain it a few months back on another double dipping thread. I think it was Halfway who explained it. See if you can access this now and keep it for when it's needed.


    If you don't have this facility, then what else do you have to prove it's a double dipping case?
    Job sheets?
    Boss/colleagues/friends who can make statements as to where you were?
    Text messages or emails that you sent or received which show where you were (or at least that you weren't in the car park).
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Apr 18, 2:07 PM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 27,345 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Smart Parking are a BPA AOS Operator, so POPLA will be the second stage appeals service.

    As they have failed to meet PoFA requirements for keeper liability, that's the one I'd run with. Convincing POPLA on double-dip has been difficult on a number of recent occasions.

    PoFA failure is an objective position from which POPLA cannot escape. Double-dip without (or flimsy) evidence is a much more subjective issue, exposing you to the whims of former nail technicians, call centre staff or steamy prose novelist.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 12th Apr 18, 6:05 PM
    • 10,400 Posts
    • 9,647 Thanks
    Guys Dad

    PoFA failure is an objective position from which POPLA cannot escape. Double-dip without (or flimsy) evidence is a much more subjective issue, exposing you to the whims of former nail technicians, call centre staff or steamy prose novelist.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    My favourite point beautifully summarised.

    We only differ in when to introduce it. I like in the appeal to the PPC whereas colleagues on here like to save it for POPLA.

    But remember, it will only work as a means of cancelling Keeper Liability, so if you choose your wording badly on either the initial appeal or the POPLA appeal and in any way admit who the driver was, then it is worthless.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

805Posts Today

6,258Users online

Martin's Twitter