Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: darkpolar on January 08, 2025, 04:48:30 pm
-
thanks! didn't know they had only 14 days. But as mentioned before in my initial appeal to them and also POPLA appeal, I kind of identified myself as the driver, although I don't know if they will make the link... will keep that if it goes to hearing as you suggest.
-
The original PCN is out of time from PoFA keeper liability.
Although you may wish to save that point in case it goes to a hearing (which it won't).
-
Thanks all for the help so far.
See below my revised defence based on all previous feedback. anything I missed?
1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx.
2. Impossibility of Performance and Frustration of Contract
2.1. The driver acted entirely in good faith, proactively purchasing a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s designated RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session: 12:45–14:45).
2.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues delayed the initial download and operation of the application, consuming time before the session could be successfully logged.
2.3. Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver intended to purchase additional time to cover the departure process. However, the Claimant’s chosen payment infrastructure, the RingGo application, technically blocked and restricted any retrospective payments or session extensions once the primary slot had lapsed.
2.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the technical limitations of the Claimant’s own payment system. A motorist cannot be penalised for a breach of contract when the Claimant's own mechanisms make compliance impossible.
3. De Minimis Variance and Failure to Apply Mandatory Grace Periods
3.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is strictly bound by the BPA Code of Practice (Version 9), active at the time of the incident.
3.2. Section 13.3 of the BPA Code mandates a "Grace Period" of a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of a parking session to allow motorists to safely vacate the site.
3.3. The paid session expired at 14:45, and the vehicle passed the exit ANPR camera at 15:02, creating a net variance of 17 minutes.
3.4. Deducting the mandatory 10-minute grace period, the technical overstay sits at a mere 7 minutes. The Defendant contends that a 7-minute variance whilst managing young children and a dog is de minimis (trifling) and does not warrant the triggering of a £100 punitive charge, particularly where 82% of the total stay was fully paid for.
4. Chronology of Reasonable Conduct and Mitigation
4.1. Formal representations were maintained consistently to resolve this matter reasonably:
• Initial Appeal: Submitted on 15/09/2024, explicitly detailing the network issues and the RingGo application’s technical restrictions. This was rejected via an automated template on 01/10/2024.
• POPLA Appeal: Lodged subsequently, where a formal offer was extended to pay the fractional tariff difference of £1.65 to ensure the landowner was fully compensated for the time on site. This was refused on 17/12/2024.
4.2. This continuous dialogue demonstrates a clear intent by the vehicle's occupants to pay the true value of the stay. The Claimant's rigid refusal to accept the tariff shortfall, choosing instead to pursue an exorbitant windfall through litigation, is unreasonable.
5. Vague Particulars, Hidden Fees, and Unlawful Interest (Abuse of Process)
5.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and are an abuse of process. The Claimant has bundled the primary £100 parking charge with arbitrary "damages" to state a sum of £170.00.
5.2. The Defendant avers that the addition of an extra £70.00 constitutes an unlawful attempt at double recovery. The primary £100 parking charge is already legally calculated by operators to include the costs of operational management and debt recovery. Artificial inflation of this nature violates the BPA Code of Practice and the principles of proportionality upheld in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
5.3. Furthermore, the Claimant demands a total "Amount claimed" of £194.92, leaving an unspecified, hidden deficit of £24.92 completely unaccounted for in the narrative of the PoC.
5.4. While the Claimant requests interest at 8% per annum under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, they have failed to provide the mandatory calculations required by CPR 16.4(2). The PoC fail to state the date from which interest runs, the total interest accrued, or the daily rate. Any procedural delays in bringing this matter to court rest entirely with the Claimant, and interest cannot be claimed as an unquantified penalty to mask arbitrary fee padding. Numerous County Courts routinely strike out parking claims in their entirety on the basis of such non-compliant and inflated pleadings.
6. Landowner Authority and Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) Compliance
6.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds the requisite written contemporaneous landowner authority to operate, issue charges, and pursue litigation in its own name at this specific location.
6.2. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has complied fully and flawlessly with all mandatory statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the Defendant as the vehicle keeper.
7. Conclusion & Order Sought
7.1. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss or strike out the claim due to the technical failings of the payment method provided, the de minimis nature of the remaining variance, the Claimant's failure to establish keeper liability, and the fundamentally non-compliant, inflated nature of the Particulars of Claim.
-
thanks, I have filed an AOS and will rework the defence following all these advices above.
Attached the original PCN,
https://ibb.co/3mM24Wgd (https://ibb.co/3mM24Wgd)
https://ibb.co/6JcfnMD7 (https://ibb.co/6JcfnMD7)
Don't hesitate to flag anything else I could use.
I will repost the final defence in a few days here .
thanks all
-
Any representations which you make should be in the 3rd person.
Do not assume that they will join the dots and work out that you admitted being the driver.
Write purely as the vehicle keeper.
So you will say, "The driver paid x for parking" etc
Can you post up the original PCN?
-
Do you have examples of their evidence e.g. actual signs which formed the contract whose breach is the basis of their claim etc?
SmartParking had provided some pictures of signs to POPLA, but since POPLA decision is over a year I don't have access to them anymore, and as I shared previously, I have not been able to go back to take picture...
Parking charge of £100 plus 'debt recovery' costs of £70 and then an unspecified sum of £24.92 which represents what, interest at the rate of ** from when, pre or post the POPLA decision, their LoC, service of the claim form? Who knows? Pursuit of the charge is in their court and IMO there's no reason to claim 'interest' (if at all) until after the court claim is served. Process delays are theirs, not yours.
So, even if there was a basis for £100, which you dispute, then what's the justification for the rest? Fertile ground for considering what you might include in a defence against the 'claim' I would have thought.
this is a very valid point, I will add to my defence. thanks!
-
Do you have examples of their evidence e.g. actual signs which formed the contract whose breach is the basis of their claim etc?
Your first posts now show 'attachment does not exist'.
In any event, you are defending their 'claim' and IMO would do well to see this in its fullest sense i.e. it's not just about whether and under what circumstances there might have been a breach.
As I understand it, their claim is for £279.92 and you do not have the option of choosing to pay part. So, what does their claim comprise?
Parking charge of £100 plus 'debt recovery' costs of £70 and then an unspecified sum of £24.92 which represents what, interest at the rate of ** from when, pre or post the POPLA decision, their LoC, service of the claim form? Who knows? Pursuit of the charge is in their court and IMO there's no reason to claim 'interest' (if at all) until after the court claim is served. Process delays are theirs, not yours.
So, even if there was a basis for £100, which you dispute, then what's the justification for the rest? Fertile ground for considering what you might include in a defence against the 'claim' I would have thought.
-
Thanks, so
22 June to submit defence or Acknowledgement of Service
6 July to submit defence if AoS submitted in time
Plenty of time.
The Particulars of Claim are rubbish, as usual, but this may not be your best primary defence point, just one of the additional points you will make.
-
thanks a lot for this, very valid feedfack, I will revise accordingly.
I thought I inserted the Claim form in my previous post, but obviously not! see below and let me know if any further advice!
https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL (https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL)
(https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL)
-
Can you show us the PoC? There's nothing showing in your post above.
I think this makes some decent arguments. In my view the strongest argument here is that you tried in good faith to pay for your full stay before leaving, but were prevented from doing so.
Some observations:
Code of Practice - Make sure you are referring to the correct one for the date of the parking incident, if you haven't already.
"2. Sparse Particulars and Failure to Comply with Civil Procedure Rules" - Their particulars are rather sparse,but saying that you are "unable to plead properly to the PoC" might be a stretch. It might not appear particularly credible to say that you are unable to plead properly, when you then go on to make 6 defence points backed up by 17 sub-paragraphs of argument. It's also clear that you are familiar with the nature of the claim, as you are able to explain the exact circumstances of parking on the day, and the exact trail of correspondence between you and Smart that followed. I'd agree that the PoC are vague, but I'm not convinced it's your strongest argument, so I'd be minded not to lead with it.
4. Mandatory Grace Periods and ANPR Deficiencies - the consideration period is a period within which a driver may leave a car park if he does not agree with the terms, it's not an additional period of free parking added to your stay, you may need to amend the wording here. Also, one of the inherent 'weaknesses' of ANPR is that it records time in and out, not time parked, as you note, but this is one of the reasons there is a grace period.
4.4. A significant portion of this time was spent physically preparing a dog and young children for travel, and cleaning off sand, within an entirely empty car park.
I'm not sure this is particularly relevant to your argument, as the vehicle presumably remained parked whilst you cleaned off sand and got the children/dog ready. If anything it undermines your broader argument about the function of ANPR, as you accept that the vehicle was parked for much of the alleged overstay.
5. Total Lack of Commercial Justification and Absence of Loss - I'm not sure this is a particularly compelling argument. I think one could argue for there being a relatively clear commercial justification for a deterrent charge in the event of someone failing to pay the correct amount for their stay. The landowner would seem to have an obvious "legitimate interest" in making sure that people pay the tariff that corresponds to the length of their stay. I note your point around 82% of the stay being paid for, to which the obvious counter is "when should enforcement begin?". The argument here risks looking like you are asking the court to take the position that motorists need only pay for 82% of their parking.
Spelling - minor point, but I'd change to British English.
Once we've seen the PoC we may be able to offer further input.
-
Thanks, below my defence, based on a few similar cases I found on this forum and some help from AI. Let me know if okay or any advice to strenghten it.
1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration xxxxxx on the material date.
2. Sparse Particulars and Failure to Comply with Civil Procedure Rules
2.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") on the Claim Form are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5.
2.2. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because the Claimant has failed to state the exact wording of the contractual terms relied upon, or provide any itemized breakdown showing how a single parking infraction calculates to the arbitrary combined sum of £170.00 for "PC and damages".
2.3. The claim discloses no clear cause of action. The Defendant submits that courts routinely strike out materially similar private parking claims of their own initiative under CPR 3.4 for failing to explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
3. Impossibility of Performance and Technical Barriers
3.1. The Defendant made a prompt, good-faith payment to purchase a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s designated RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session: 12:45–14:45).
3.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues delayed the initial download and operation of the application.
3.3. Upon realizing an overstay would occur due to practical delays handling young children and a dog on a beach visit, the Defendant attempted to extend the session. However, the RingGo application technically restricted any retrospective payments or session extensions once the primary slot had lapsed.
3.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the technical limitations of the Claimant’s own chosen payment infrastructure, which failed to accommodate real-world network constraints.
4. Mandatory Grace Periods and ANPR Deficiencies
4.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is strictly bound by its Code of Practice.
4.2. Section 13.1 mandates a "Consideration Period" (minimum 5 minutes) to enter, read signage, and complete a payment contract. Section 13.3 mandates a "Grace Period" (minimum 10 minutes) at the end of a session to allow motorists to safely vacate.
4.3. The vehicle passed the exit ANPR camera at 15:02, establishing a net variance of 17 minutes past the paid session.
4.4. A significant portion of this time was spent physically preparing a dog and young children for travel, and cleaning off sand, within an entirely empty car park. The Claimant's automated "gate-to-gate" ANPR timings fail to isolate actual stationary parking duration from the mandatory consideration and grace periods required to safely pack up and navigate the site.
5. Total Lack of Commercial Justification and Absence of Loss
5.1. The alleged incident occurred on a Monday. On this day, the Turner Contemporary Art Gallery—to which this car park is exclusively attached—was fully closed to the public.
5.2. Consequently, the car park was virtually vacant and dormant. The Defendant's vehicle did not obstruct operations, cause a nuisance, or prevent any other paying motorists from parking.
5.3. Under the binding precedent of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a private parking charge must possess a "legitimate interest" or "commercial justification" to be enforceable; it cannot be an unconscionable penalty.
5.4. Demanding an exorbitant penalty for a minor overstay where 82% of the stay was fully paid for, in an empty car park serving a closed facility, serves no legitimate management purpose. It is an unenforceable penalty designed solely to extract disproportionate profit.
6. Chronology of Correspondence and Settlement Offers
6.1. The Defendant has maintained a consistent dialogue and acted reasonably throughout:Initial Appeal: Submitted on 15/09/2024, explicitly detailing the technical restrictions of the RingGo app and poor local signal. Rejected by the Claimant on 01/10/2024 via a generic template. POPLA Appeal: Lodged subsequently, where the Defendant formally offered to pay the tariff difference of £1.65 to cover the exact fractional shortfall. This was refused on a purely rigid, factual automated basis on 17/12/2024.
6.2. The Defendant relies upon this correspondence to demonstrate a continuous good-faith willingness to settle the true value of the stay, which the Claimant unreasonably refused in pursuit of a windfall.
7. Unlawful Double Recovery and Abuse of Process
7.1. The Claimant has appended an arbitrary "damages" fee to the original £100 parking charge to arrive at the demanded £170.00.
7.2. The Defendant avers that this inflation constitutes an abuse of process. Such automated, artificial add-ons are strictly disallowed under the BPA Code of Practice and the principles set out in ParkingEye v Beavis. It represents a clear attempt at double recovery for legal/debt services that are already factored into the primary £100 charge. Numerous County Courts routinely strike out claims in their entirety on this basis.
8. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
8.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds the requisite written contemporaneous landowner authority to operate, issue charges, and pursue litigation in its own name at this specific location.
9. Conclusion & Order Sought
9.1. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 as an abuse of process and having no real prospect of success. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.1. fied by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Do not counterclaim, because if you do you will prevent DCB Legal from discontinuing.
Use MCOL and do it all online
Feel free to post your proposed defence here for comments before the deadline, which is 14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form unless you submit an Acknowledgement of Service by this date, and if you file an AoS you get an additional 14 days for the defence submission.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the advices so far, the Claim Form came through the post this morning, see below. There are a few other pages of response pack.
(https://ibb.co/tph1bXwh)
Based on the advices so far, I take I need to fill the defence and counterclaim page? does it make any difference if I use the paper form or the online form? anything specific I should be mentioning?
I was unfortunately not able to go back to the parking for picture of signage in the meantime, and Google street image is 4 years old and looks like before the parking was open... anything else I should consider?
thanks in advance
-
Correct.
You will get a court claim form in due course, N1SDT. Please post just the front page with claim number, personal details and password obscured when you do.
Your defence needs to be factual, in the face of their claim that the driver of the car entered into a contract by reading clear signs and accepting their terms by parking. DCB Legal usually discontinue in the face of a defended claim, but you’ll have to think of something to use as your defence in the first place. One possible avenue could be to take pictures of the signs and their location and see if this helps formulate a defence.
-
so I replied to DCB Legal's LoC using their web form, and they send back the below email. From previous post I understand I do not need to respond to such email. is that correct? thanks
We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.
Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.
As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.
We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 838 7038, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.
If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice
Kind Regards,
DCB Legal Ltd
-
well, I am looking for helpful advice regarding reasons I could use to defend against this claim, since the main argument I used so far is not flying. Any advice you can offer?
-
Thanks for that, any helpful advice?
As opposed to unhelpful advice?
You should reply to the Letter of Claim, without going overboard, and in due course you will need to submit a defence to a court claim, so think about what your defence will be.
If you defend a claim it is normal that DCB Legal will discontinue rather than paying the court fee.
But you should search the forum for similar cases also.
-
Thanks for that, any helpful advice?
-
The Supreme Court (Beavis) ruled that the charge is not excessive.
You did not pay for 27 minutes.
You revealed the identity of the driver.
So you need other reasons, other than just not wanting to pay.
-
You should reply to the Letter of Claim:
The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
thanks. any advice on the reasson I should reject the claim? when I first appealed to smartpartking and Popla, my main argument was the charge of £100 for a 27-minute overstay is excessively punitive, especially considering I paid for a substantial 2-hour parking session. But that argument doesn't seem to fly...
-
You should reply to the Letter of Claim:
The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
-
We don't need to see any debt collector letters but do show us the LoC and eventually the actual Claim Form when they arrive so that we can advise accordingly.
So the LoC just arrived, anything I need to do other than waiting for the Claim Form?
(https://i.ibb.co/YBpPRPCt/IMG-0498.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pjJb0b73)
-
okay! will post back here whenever that LoC comes, thanks again!
-
Could be a few months, sometimes longer, sometimes never. They have 6 years from the date of the alleged contravention to issue a county court claim.
There really is nothing to fear about this. It is a civil law contract issue. It is nothing to do with criminal law. The NtK is simply a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company.
In the 1% of cases that actually make it all the way to a hearing and are not won, as long as the CCJ amount is fully paid within one calendar month of the judgment, there is no record of it on your credit history. I tis completely expunged from the record.
-
Thanks! And how long does it take usually to reach the LoC stage? a couple of months or more?
-
understood regarding ignoring the debt collectors and hold on till the LoC. But any chance that might somehow impact the credit score?
Absolutely not. We would never advise anything that could result in a CCJ.
As I mentioned, they are relying on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and you have just shown why. You obviously do not understand how the process works and assuming that your credit record could be affected by this is exactly what they hope for.
-
Oh dear. What a pity you hadn't come here for advice before appealing. (not so) Smart Parking are one of the easiest to defeat as they do not rely on PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified. They have no idea who the driver is and unless the Keeper blabs its inadvertently or otherwise, they have nowhere else to go with this.
However, you are where you are, having blown the 'golden ticket'. The POPLA decision is not binding on you and so, do not pay them.
You are now in a sort of limbo state. You will start to receive debt collector letters which you must ignore. The debt collectors are powerless to do anything, no matter how scary they sound. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Never, ever, communicate or respond to a debt collector. You can safely ignore them.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from their bulk litigator of choice, usually DCB Legal. After the LoC you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. This must be responded to.
Once the claim is defended, in due course they will eventually discontinue. Their modus operandi is well known and they will not go as far as a hearing, rather relying on you being low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and more likely to pay up out of ignorance and/or fear. Don't pay a penny, they will discontinue.
We don't need to see any debt collector letters but do show us the LoC and eventually the actual Claim Form when they arrive so that we can advise accordingly.
yes, I am gutted not finding this forum before... understood regarding ignoring the debt collectors and hold on till the LoC. But any chance that might somehow impact the credit score? thanks a lot
-
Doesn't matter. Wait for the claim, defend and they will discontinue. Don't waste your time on anything else and get on with your life in the meantime.
-
shame you didn't cone here for advice first!
I assume you revealed the identity of the driver to (not so) smart parking?
yeah, realised I should have researched more. but yes, I believe so, in my appeal to them I used "I" (paid) a lot...
-
and you paid for 2hrs but stayed for 2 1/2 hrs?
yeah paid 120 min out of the 147 min
-
Oh dear. What a pity you hadn't come here for advice before appealing. (not so) Smart Parking are one of the easiest to defeat as they do not rely on PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified. They have no idea who the driver is and unless the Keeper blabs its inadvertently or otherwise, they have nowhere else to go with this.
However, you are where you are, having blown the 'golden ticket'. The POPLA decision is not binding on you and so, do not pay them.
You are now in a sort of limbo state. You will start to receive debt collector letters which you must ignore. The debt collectors are powerless to do anything, no matter how scary they sound. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Never, ever, communicate or respond to a debt collector. You can safely ignore them.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from their bulk litigator of choice, usually DCB Legal. After the LoC you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. This must be responded to.
Once the claim is defended, in due course they will eventually discontinue. Their modus operandi is well known and they will not go as far as a hearing, rather relying on you being low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and more likely to pay up out of ignorance and/or fear. Don't pay a penny, they will discontinue.
We don't need to see any debt collector letters but do show us the LoC and eventually the actual Claim Form when they arrive so that we can advise accordingly.
-
and you paid for 2hrs but stayed for 2 1/2 hrs?
-
shame you didn't cone here for advice first!
I assume you revealed the identity of the driver to (not so) smart parking?
-
Hi all,
realised after reading a few posts here that I should probably post the case way before I take any actions, but we are where we are and hopefully can still receive some advices.
In August, I parked in the Turner contemporary art gallery car park in Margate, it was Monday and the art gallery was closed and the parking was almost empty, but we went there for a walk on the beach. Upon checking the signage, the parking is still to be paid even on days Art gallery is closed, so I paid using RingGo for 2h, (although I struggle with this as I had to download the app and there were almost no signals). Played with dog and kids on the beach, and when time was up, we did came back to the carpark just a couple of minutes late. But having not seen any traffic warden (and I never experienced those kind of smart parking before), and an even emptier car park, we took our time to dry the dog and get sands off our shoes before leaving the parking. Toping up did cross my mind, but RingGo didn't seem to give me option to pay more once the session has ended.
Anyway, a few weeks later I received the attached PCN saying I overstayed by 27 min. (arrival time 12:35 - departure time 15:02, my Ringgo payment history shows I paid for 12:45-14:45.)
[attach=1][attach=2]
Although I recognise it is a case of overstay, I felt hard done by and disproportionate penalty as I did pay the parking for 120 min out of 147 min, getting a PCN of £100 as if I have not paid at all. So hoping for some common sense, I used their appeal system, which was rejected a couple of weeks later, with the following message
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge as we believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period we have extended the discount period until 15/10/2024.
We note the comments made within your appeal, however we cannot rescind the PC on this basis. We wish to confirm that the contravention of insufficient paid time occurred as our system confirms that whilst 120 were purchased were purchased against Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) xxx, your vehicle remained on site for 147 minutes. The signage onsite clearly informs motorist that they are required to purchase a valid ticket for the full duration of their vehicles stay onsite. Furthermore, additional time can be purchased at any point during throughout your vehicles stay, before exiting the car park, allowing for any unexpected overstays due to circumstances such as those outlined in your appeal.
We wish to inform that the car park in question is operated by ANPR cameras system which captures images of your vehicle entering and exiting the site, which subsequently calculates your total stay duration. This information is then paired with the information entered into the payment machine/alternate payment option, to establish whether or not the correct payment has been made against the full and correct vehicle registration for the total duration the vehicle is on site - this is calculated from the time of entrance to the time of exit.
As the vehicle was on site in excess of the parking time purchased and no valid additional payments were made to cover the entire parking duration, we wish to advised that the advertised Terms and Conditions were breached. Subsequently the PC has been issued correctly. The Terms and Conditions of the car park are clearly advertised around the site and must be adhered to by all drivers.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal - you cannot do both.
If the Parking Charge was issued in England and Wales you also have the right of appeal to an independent appeals service (POPLA). If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on their website at www.popla.co.uk
...
So I did lodge an appeal at Popla, hoping for less profit oriented more balanced people would have better common sense, but after waiting for 2 months, this also get rejected a couple of weeks ago, see case letter attached.
[attach=3]
So at this point, any advice appreciated, I just want to understand if it is still worth fighting the case, and if so, what further actions can I take?
thanks in advance
PS: There some pictures of signages submitted by SmartParking to POPLA but it seems I can't access them anymore on Popla since case is closed (they were not helpful in any sense as it just say you have to pay for the duration). Google map also not useful for signage as it pre-dated the parking completion I suppose.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3914381,1.3818267,3a,75y,40.56h,71.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8c_G0TToEK5fd5595JD2pg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D18.184981950631283%26panoid%3D8c_G0TToEK5fd5595JD2pg%26yaw%3D40.563165920133144!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
[attachment deleted by admin]