Good morning,
I have had some wonderful help by the guys over in the council tickets forum but now is my first time to trouble you all with a private parking charge notice.
I have received the below as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I have just sent an email to the hotel in question to request they cancel the ticket as below but I am not overly hopeful as they state on their website that they "can't" cancel tickets from Smart Parking.
Email sent to hotel
Good morning,
I write to you as the Registered Keeper of the above mentioned vehicle that has received a Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking. I understand that on the evening in question for this notice, the driver of the vehicle was enjoying the facilities of your hotel and bar but it would appear that on this occasion they forgot to enter the car registration into the tablet at reception.
As this was merely an innocent oversight, could I please ask you to arrange to cancel this Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking.
Many thanks
Assuming this is unsuccessful in the first instance, would the following apply to me in this case and should this be my next line of approach?
I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
You cannot transfer the driver's liability (if any) to me as keeper because:
1 your PCN was not delivered within the 'relevant period' as defined in paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'); and
2. your PCN does not contain the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f).
Either one of the above failures to comply with POFA is alone sufficient to require cancellation of the PCN. I require you to cancel the PCN or to issue a POPLA Code so POPLA can order you to cancel it.
Thanks in advance!
Smart are generally one of the easier parking companies to beat - be sure not to miss any appeal deadlines whilst waiting for the hotel to respond. The appeal template you posted should do the trick. Smart do not even attempt to comply with PoFA, so I generally suggest the below wording, but either that or the one you suggested should do the trick.
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver is liable for a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
Any appeal should be submitted ideally online, being sure to do so as the registered keeper, not telling them who was driving. If they do not respond within 35 days, then chase them up.
Thanks very much DWMB2.
The hotel came back to me pretty quickly this morning to say
I am very sorry to hear that,
we have signage through out the Hotel as we are unable to assist. unfortunately you will have to deal with Smart Parking directly, I nor anyone in the Hotel can assist you.
Parking is managed by Smart Parking and it is at their discretion where the fine will be waved.
Kind regards
So I have submitted an appeal as per your post just now and will make a diary reminder for 35 days time. Thanks
The hotel are spouting bovine excrement about any fact that can't assist in getting their agent to cancel a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of a term. You should remind them that it is likely to affect their future turnover if you, your family and friends decide to choose a different venue in future because of the threat of an additional charge of £100 from an unregulated private parking company after spending money with them.
A robust complaint to the management at the location and also to the CEO of the chain should not go amiss. That aside, the appeal by the keeper without revealing the drivers identity should get this quashed. However, probably not before (not so) Smart Parking refuse the initial appeal. POPLA should shoot them down as (not so) Smart cannot hold the keeper liable.
The hotel are spouting bovine excrement about any fact that can't assist in getting their agent to cancel a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of a term.
They might not be - there have been examples in the past of all sorts of bizarre contracts signed by landowners limiting their control over the cancelling of charges, despite the parking company ostensibly being there on the landowner's behalf.
However, probably not before (not so) Smart Parking refuse the initial appeal.
These days Smart
usually do cancel on receipt of a PoFA based appeal along the lines of the one above. They seem to have largely given up their previous tactic of rejecting, then pulling out at the POPLA stage.
They might not be - there have been examples in the past of all sorts of bizarre contracts signed by landowners limiting their control over the cancelling of charges, despite the parking company ostensibly being there on the landowner's behalf.
I'd still complain to the hotel and suggest to them that allowing an unregulated agent of theirs to operate without recourse for them to get their agent to cancel a PCN is likely to cost the hotel in lost future business and shows an intellectually malnourished approach to customer satisfaction. You should let them know that you, your family, friends and colleagues will from now on be exercising your right to take your business elsewhere in future if they think that treating their customers as cash-cows for their unregulated agent is somehow "good business".
Just to circle back on this that Smart Parking have cancelled their Parking Charge Notice on the back of the email I sent them. Thanks very much for your help here everyone!
Thanks for the update - good result!
Just shows what ignoramuses they are if they've cancelled the parking charge because nothing you wrote bore upon the charge itself only whether they could hold you liable instead of the driver who they did not know. But it's probably easier for them because without the driver's details and unless they could frighten the keeper into paying they were on a loser. No point throwing money away, I'm certain they've got other more gullible targets lined up.
I'm glad you didn't complain to all and sundry before about the hotel, after all they wouldn't know you from Adam and as you didn't supply the guest's name what did you really expect? And of course if you were the driver and expected the hotel to make this assumption then if they'd contacted Smart then you shouldn't have been surprised if they did the same.
You were wise not to lose focus.
But if you do know something about how parking operates then I'm interested in this in the context of their reply and data protection e.g. does the Mercure website and booking conditions refer to a driver giving their data(VRM) to the hotel or a third party, how is this done, what role does the hotel play e.g. enters a guest's data into their records which they make available to the third party, or the guest does this at a publicly accessible terminal which is only given shelter by the hotel or is it actually operated by them etc?
IMO, although we see this sort of problem occurring occasionally, I'm of the opinion that hotels should include this as part of their reception duties and arguably part of their care responsibility to guests.
But then again, what's a guest? Your posts are careful with words and the time of exit(2am) suggests that the driver was not a staying guest, simply someone attending a function.
By all means PM me.
But it's probably easier for them because without the driver's details and unless they could frighten the keeper into paying they were on a loser. No point throwing money away, I'm certain they've got other more gullible targets lined up.
At this point, I think the reason they don't bother with complying with PoFA and just cancel when someone points out that they haven't, is for the very reason above (in bold). Having a quick way to filter out those who aren't easy marks presumably keeps their wasted time and costs associated with that down.
Smart made 513,696 KADOE requests to the DVLA in the first 3 quarters of this financial year - if you can get enough of them to give you £60 then you don't need to bother with the stubborn ones who put up an fight.
Agree x 1
View List