At this point I think Trading Standards need to tell Smart Parking to change their company name, as it is clearly misleading.
@bebu - did you make the point about landowner authority? If so, can you show us what they have provided by way of a contract? Smart used to have serious issues with this, so I'd be interested to see what they've provided.
lol, they should call themselves DAFT PARKING STANDARDS
Yes, I did mention the landowner argument, I think they just omitted everything and have their arguments mixed up
Here was my argument
Re: Parking ticket TC82751969 ( POPLA Verification Code: 8512324712)
I was issued with a parking ticket for parking at the Anlaby shopping centre for my visit on the 15th July 2024. I have been charged £100. I believe that this ticket was issued unfairly. I am NOT liable for the amount payable. Reasons and evidence below:
1. No legal evidence of land authority
2. There was insufficient signage and not clearly visible
3. Enroute the centre, where I parked at the time, there is a major road, which branches off to the right, notably where I parked there is no clearly visible sign
4. From the spot I parked and my short walk into the gym, (on that day the PCN was issued) there is no clearly visible sign.
5. I drove back to the shopping centre today and at the entrance is a disabled spot with a sign on it, which is not clear, as the sign is placed on a disable spot and not at the entrance of the gym
6. Gross unfairness and affecting my mental health
Even if smart parking, in all fairness is setting up 3 hours parking restrictions where a gym exists. It would be in the public’s interest to ensure the gym “IN QUESTION” notifies its members, in the app, on the gym floor and upon sign up. If it is done in FAIRNESS. After all a gym is not just about hours of working out, it has showers, hour long classes, changing, banter (mental health) etc
Kind regards
INTRODUCTION – my reason to visit the gym
I am a member of both Nuffield Fitness gym and JD Gyms in Hull. Of which I have been using Nuffield for almost 14 years now. I am not a member of Pure Gym, but was my first visit on the fateful day
An old friend, told me about Pure Gym in Anlaby ( which I had never been to, neither do I shop in that area) and sent me a free pass, asking to meet up before 5pm.
I had sent him a photo that I was infront of the gym as I arrived early, but he unfortunately arrived late. (Kindly see whatsapp evidence, and there was no parking advisory sign, where I parked as I sent him a photo)
I repeat: There was no sign or warning from both smart parking, neither any put up by Pure gym, (outside their premises, inside or in their app) and they do not have any staff manning the entrance.
POINT OF APPEAL
1. No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also 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 put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA 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. 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 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 Code of Practice 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
No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also 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 put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA 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. 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 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 Code of Practice 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
Above is a google map of direction from my house to the gym. There is no sign as you approach the entrance and insufficient enroute the gym.
2. There was insufficient signage. There was no sign at the entrance of the car park or major areas in the car park, neither is there any at the entrance of the gym
I have attached a whatsapp screenshot, when I arrived the gym and was waiting for my friend, who invited me for a 5 day workout session.
Notably, I had parked infront of the gym and there was no sign at the entrance. I have also attached more photos of the area attesting to this fact. At the end of this document
3. The reason for my visit: The gym in question ( Pure Gym, in Anlaby Hull) uses automated entries and assistance, as there is no one there to advise you
No one at pure gym picks there phones, replies to emails or replies to their facebook and social media accounts.
4. From the spot I parked and my short walk into the gym, (on that day the PCN was issued) there is no clearly visible sign. This is a statement of fact and honesty
6. Gross unfairness and affecting my mental health
Even though this is not quoted in the “requirements of the BPA CoP” I think its important that we speak out against private companies setting traps for unsuspecting individuals.
I honestly never saw any of the notices/signs and innocently went to the gym, it would have been fair, if they insisted also, that the gym notify their members, rather than set traps for them
See more evidence attached below
Main entrance – No obvious signed
Main Entrance – No Obvious signs
Where I parked, No signs. Kindly note this is the main and only entrance into the gym
