Author Topic: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received  (Read 82 times)

0 Members and 50 Guests are viewing this topic.

Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« on: »
Hi all,

I hope you can give me some advice. I have just received a County Court Claim relating to a Smart Parking PCN issued in 2022. I appealed the claim which was unsuccessful. After advice I received on Pepipoo I ignored the subsequent demands which have come occasionally since then.

It was a classic double dip scenario. I dropped my kids off in the the carpark so that they catch the bus to school. However, a bridge was out and the buses were not running, so I had to return a couple of hours later to pick them up and drive them to school. Both times, I was in the car park for just a few minutes. The first 2 hours are free. However, the APNR did not appear to pick up that I left and returned, so they are claiming I was in there for over two hours.
In between my two visits I dropped my other child at his school, went home, and met up with friend close to my home. All of this was on the other side of the city to the car park and I could not have done it with having driven back.

In my appeal I provided evidence that I dropped the other child at school on the other side of the city, a statement from the friend that I met up with, texts from my children asking me to return to the car park to pick them up, evidence that the buses were cancelled. I also provide evidence that the same thing had happened to me before and has happened to others in the that same carpark. Yet it was still rejected on the grounds that none of this proves the car was not in the car park during this time. Apparently the burden of proof is on me to prove it was not.


Should I now respond to the County Court Claim with my defence, or is it likely that (as with the appeal) this will be rejected in court as insufficient evidence?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« Reply #1 on: »
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Your evidence will include your witness statement, if it comes to that.

Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« Reply #2 on: »
If you did not identify the driver, then Smart PCNs from this period generally don’t comply with PoFA 2012 and so the liability can not be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If you used “I” in your appeal, you killed this potential defence.

Smart needs to prove that on the balance of probabilities your car was present during the stated time period. Not the other way round.

If you follow the advice in the link I already gave you and post documentation for us to see, we may be able to provide better advice.

Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« Reply #3 on: »
Smart needs to prove that on the balance of probabilities your car was present during the stated time period. Not the other way round.

Smart will presumably have evidence of the [first] arrival and the [second] departure. In a vacuum, that would prove the presence of the OP's car on the balance of probabilities. It would fall to the OP to convince the court that, on the balance of probabilities, it was not.

Smart are members of the IAS. The process for the initial appeal is that the PPC carefully considers whether or not he wants the mark to pay him, before rejecting the appeal. The process for the IAS appeal is slightly different, in that the IPC carefully considers whether rejecting appeals regardless of trivialities such as law and evidence encourages PPCs to choose them rather than the more balanced BPA as their AOS provider.

A court of law has constitutional requirements such as independence and impartiality, and a requirement to apply the law to a reasonable assessment of the facts. This is *very* different to the initial "appeals".
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« Reply #4 on: »
I totally agree with you, but until the original poster gives us the information requested I’m not sure what extra assistance we can provide.

Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
« Reply #5 on: »
Taking his post at face value, his question is whether it is worth defending or whether the County Court is likely to simply ignore his evidence like Smart and the IAS have.

Whilst it is difficult to assess exactly how much weight unknown DDJ would give unknown evidence presented by a defendant we've never met, I would suggest that a combination of not giving arguably incorrect advice, and explaining the difference between a fake appeals process and an imp[artial court hearing would seem to be a good start.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Agree Agree x 1 View List