DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 6, 2025, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You say the driver has not been identified, but your appeal says
"I left the car park".
What's done is done. We can advise on a POPLA appeal - key
points would seem to be the grace period, a potential
frustration of contract (the issue with your son), and landowner
authority (which is always worth raising in Smart cases).
#Post#: 56990--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: b789
Date: February 6, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You blabbed the driver identity by not referring to the driver
in the third person. However, it is slightly vague so you should
still work at POPLA.
#Post#: 56991--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: nasmin
Date: February 6, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That was a school boy error. Are there any examples of appeals
that have been made to POPLA which can be used by way of
example?
The 'I' was just a phrase - and not actually correct.
#Post#: 57044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: b789
Date: February 7, 2025, 2:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the driver has been identified does not detract
from the fact that the PCN has been issued in breach of the
BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the
fact that is highly unlikely that Smart even have a valid
contract to operate at the location.
The advice here is you fight this unfair PCN. Please let us know
if you are willing to follow the advice and go all the way with
this.
#Post#: 57046--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 7, 2025, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The 'I' was just a phrase - and not actually correct.
--- End Quote ---
I'd not try to run with that angle. Trying to argue that when
you said "I" what you actually meant was "someone else" just
won't come across as credible.
As b789 notes you have other options to challenge this open to
you, and in my view it'd be better to focus on those for POPLA.
--- Quote ---
> highly unlikely that Smart even have a valid contract to
operate at the location.
--- End Quote ---
Indeed - I'll be honest it's been a while since I've seen a
Smart case go to POPLA but they always used to withdraw when
challenged on their contract.
#Post#: 57082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: nasmin
Date: February 7, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is helpful - thank you. Wasnt suggesting that I use the it
wasn't me angle but more a reply to the comment. I will pull a
draft together and post it here for comment. Thank you so far...
#Post#: 57374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: nasmin
Date: February 10, 2025, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[Your Name] [Your Address] [City, Postcode] [Email Address]
[Date]
POPLA Appeals Team PO Box 1270 Warrington WA4 9RL
Subject: POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice (PCN) SP5006904A
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am appealing Parking Charge Notice (PCN) SP5006904A issued by
Smart Parking Ltd on the following grounds:
1.
(Clause 13) requires operators to allow a reasonable grace
period for motorists to leave after their parking session ends.
The total overstay in this case was 09 minutes after the parking
expired, which falls well within the accepted grace period of at
least 10 minutes, as established by the BPA and the Department
for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in their
regulatory guidance.
2.
provided clear evidence that they have a valid contract with the
landowner granting them the authority to issue and enforce
parking charges at this location. As per Section 7 of the BPA
Code of Practice, a valid contract must clearly outline Smart
Parking’s authority, including evidence that they are permitted
to issue PCNs, pursue unpaid charges through enforcement, and
take legal action if necessary. I request that Smart Parking
provides an unredacted, signed, and dated contract with the
landowner proving their authority to operate at this location.
If such a contract is not presented, the PCN should be
considered invalid.
3.
question, my son was unwell and was throwing up – there was a
delay in exiting the car park as a result of having to ensure
his well being, which led to unavoidable delays in my departure
from the car park. Under contract law, a contract cannot be
enforced when external circumstances (beyond the control of the
driver) prevent compliance with its terms. This unforeseen
emergency made it impossible for me to comply with the parking
restrictions, and as such, the charge is unfair and should be
cancelled.
4.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to determine
entry and exit times. However, ANPR technology is prone to
errors, including failure to account for grace periods, system
time discrepancies, and vehicle misidentifications. Given the
issues with the payment system on the day, I challenge the
accuracy of Smart Parking’s system and request full ANPR
calibration records, maintenance logs, and evidence that the
system is regularly checked for errors.
#Post#: 57422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: b789
Date: February 10, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nasmin link ---
>
> That is helpful - thank you. Wasnt suggesting that I use the
it wasn't me angle but more a reply to the comment. I will pull
a draft together and post it here for comment. Thank you so
far...
>
--- End Quote ---
No one here ever suggested that the recipient of an NtK "lies"
about whether they were the driver or not. There simply is no
obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company and because the Keeper and
the driver are two separate legal entities, all the Keeper has
to do is refer to the driver in the third person.
Most low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree inadvertently blab
the driver identity by saying silly things like "I did this and
that" instead of referring to the driver in the third person
such as "The driver is this or that". Any burden of proof is on
the operator and they are not allowed to infer or presume that
the Keeper must also be the driver. How else do you imagine that
a scumbag ex-clamper, unregulated private parking firm can find
the identity of the driver?
Here is a suggested appeal to POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> Grounds for appeal
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Payment Deadline in the Notice to
Keeper
> 2. Requirement for Strict Proof of the Posting Date of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)
> 3. Incorrect Appeal Deadline Stated on the Notice to Keeper
(NtK)
> 4. Failure to Apply the Mandatory 10-Minute Grace Period
(PPSCoP Annex B, Table B1)
> 5. No evidence of landholder authority
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Payment Deadline in the Notice to
Keeper
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Smart Parking Ltd
contains a significant error in how it sets the payment
deadline. The NtK states:
>
> [indent]"If payment is not received within 28 days of the date
this parking charge was issued, a £10 administration charge will
be levied and the case may be passed on to a debt recovery
agent."[/indent]
>
> This is non-compliant with Section 8.1.2 of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which states:
>
> [indent]"Motorists must be allowed to appeal up to 28 days
from the day after they received the Notice."[/indent]
>
> The PPSCoP further clarifies in Note 2 of Section 8.1.2 that:
>
> [indent]"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working
day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose,
'working day' means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales."[/indent]
>
> It stands to reason that the 28-day deadline for payment must
also be calculated from the date of receipt of the NtK, not its
issue date. The NtK’s wording conflicts with this requirement
and misleads recipients into believing that they have fewer days
to pay or appeal than is actually required by the PPSCoP.
>
> On this basis alone, the PCN has been issued incorrectly and
must be cancelled.
>
> 2. Requirement for Strict Proof of the Posting Date of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)
>
> As already noted in Point 1, Smart Parking's NtK fails to
comply with the requirements of the PPSCoP by incorrectly
stating that payment must be made within 28 days of the issue
date, rather than the receipt date.
>
> I put the operator to provide strict proof that the NtK was
posted on the same date that it was "issued." Section 8.1.2 of
the PPSCoP makes it clear that:
>
> [indent]"Parking operators must retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated (e.g., the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator
actually put it in the postal system)."[/indent]
>
> Simply stating that the NtK was "issued", which means
"generated", on a specific date is insufficient to demonstrate
compliance. Without evidence, such as a dated proof of posting,
there is no way to confirm the presumed delivery timeline. If
Smart Parking cannot produce such evidence, the deemed receipt
date cannot be established, and the NtK must be deemed invalid
for failing to meet the requirements of the PPSCoP.
>
> 3. Incorrect Appeal Deadline Stated on the Notice to Keeper
(NtK)
>
> Another breach of the PPSCoP is the information provided on
the back of the NtK, which incorrectly states that the driver
has 28 days to appeal from the issue date of the notice.
>
> Section 8.1.2 of the PPSCoP clearly states that motorists must
be allowed to appeal up to 28 days from the date of receipt of
the notice. As noted in Point 1, receipt is presumed to be two
working days after the notice is posted unless the contrary is
proven.
>
> By stating an incorrect appeal deadline based on the issue
date rather than the receipt date, Smart Parking misleads
motorists and fails to adhere to the requirements of the PPSCoP.
This misinformation further demonstrates the operator's
disregard for compliance and fairness.
>
> This is yet another instance of the operator's failure to
follow the PPSCoP, and therefore the PCN must be deemed invalid
and cancelled.
>
> 4. Failure to Apply the Mandatory 10-Minute Grace Period
(PPSCoP Annex B, Table B1)
>
> The permit purchased for parking on the date in question
expired at 15:20, and the ANPR system recorded the vehicle
exiting at 15:29. This is a 9-minute period after expiry, during
which time the vehicle was in motion rather than parked.
>
> According to Annex B, Table B1 of the PPSCoP, a minimum grace
period of 10 minutes must be applied after a parking session has
expired before enforcement action can be taken. The PPSCoP
states:
>
> [indent]"The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in
Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators."[/indent]
>
> Since the vehicle exited within this mandatory minimum grace
period, no contravention occurred. The PCN has therefore been
issued in direct breach of the PPSCoP, making it invalid.
>
> This is yet another example of Smart Parking failing to comply
with the PPSCoP, and as a result, the PCN must be cancelled.
>
> 5. No evidence of landholder authority
>
> Smart Parking, an operator with known history of issuing PCNs
without a valid contract flowing from the landowner to do so, is
put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted
evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of
the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the
operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions,
exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any
instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no
evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue
parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and
start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing
to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare
licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As
this operator does not have proprietary interest in the
“relevant 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.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> In light of the operators many blatant failures to fully
comply with the requirements of the BPA/IPC Private Parking
Single Code of Practice, as noted above, and doubt that they
even have a valid contract to operate at the location, POPLA
cannot justify the operator to have issued the PCN correctly and
should order the operator to cancel it.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 57448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: nasmin
Date: February 10, 2025, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the basis for the appeal - one final question - is
it worth adding these?
Frustration of Contract – Medical Emergency On the day in
question, my son was unwell and was throwing up – there was a
delay in exiting the car park as a result of having to ensure
his well being, which led to unavoidable delays in my departure
from the car park. Under contract law, a contract cannot be
enforced when external circumstances (beyond the control of the
driver) prevent compliance with its terms. This unforeseen
emergency made it impossible for me to comply with the parking
restrictions, and as such, the charge is unfair and should be
cancelled.
ANPR Inaccuracy and System Errors Smart Parking relies on
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to determine
entry and exit times. However, ANPR technology is prone to
errors, including failure to account for grace periods, system
time discrepancies, and vehicle misidentifications. Given the
issues with the payment system on the day, I challenge the
accuracy of Smart Parking’s system and request full ANPR
calibration records, maintenance logs, and evidence that the
system is regularly checked for errors.
#Post#: 57622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge @ St John Road (East) B17- 9LD
DIR By: b789
Date: February 11, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget the ANPR errors argument. However, it would be useful to
add a section about the operators failure to consider the
mitigation of an emergency/medical situation which is covered in
the PPSCoP section 8.4.4 which states that "In considering
appeals, parking operators must consider mitigating
circumstances in accordance with Annex F."
Can you evidence the "medical issue" you claim caused your
delayed departure? If not, then don't bother. Without evidence,
every single appeal would have to be accepted just because the
appellant said there was a medical issue.
Anyway, overthinking an appeal for a (not so) Smart PCN is a
wasted effort.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page