Smart parking PCN

[starlord]

Hi - I should have posted much earlier but haven't been able to due to various reasons, hopefully I can still have some success with a PCN I received.

I received a PCN from Smart parking dated 28/09/2020 relating to a visit to a car park on 23/08/2020. The vehicle the PCN relates to is a lease vehicle and I am the registered keeper. Based on previous experience I contested on the basis of their failure to comply with requirements of PofA, however I did this outside of the 28 days 'allowed' by Smart Parking Ltd.

I received a response from them explaining that this 'contravention' was in relation to "insufficient paid time" by the driver and that my appeal as keeper was rejected as it was received outwith the 28 days allowed per the British Parking Association Code of Practice (para. 23.7) and the PCN recovery has now been handed to Debt Recovery Plus. I've since had 2 letters from DRP, the last give me various options of payment including a warning my charge may increase further and incur court fees.

My sense is that because the initial PCN failed to comply with PofA, all else that has happened since is not relevant, but wanted to check that with an expert and also receive some guidance on next steps. Should I resend my appeal letter to Smart Parking and/or DRP emphasising the piece about further comms from either of them being considered vexatious and harassment, or should I ignore DRP altogether and just send to Smart Parking or is there other action I should take?

Any help would be much appreciated.

[ostell]

So let's see the PCN. You say this is a lease vehicle and you are the registered keeper. Do you have th V5 with your name on it?

The Code of Practise is not law, though they pretend it is, the law is POFA

Respond to Smart pointing out what I said and deny any responsibility. Demand that they stop harassing you and withdraw their debt collectors

[starlord]

Thanks Ostell - I'll do that. Will try and figure out how to get a redacted image of the PCN up for you asap.

[ostell]

Details of the V5 are quite critical

[starlord]

I don't have the V5 - this is held by the lease company (it is through a company scheme) - when I had a previous issue with same lease car the lease company named me as the hirer/driver however the insurance allows for multiple drivers and others are authorised to (and do) drive the car

[ostell]

That is why I was querying as you called yourself the registered keeper, which could not be true. You are the keeper.

You will have been named as the hirer. They could not name the driver, they were not there.

With the PCN was there additional documents included?

What did you put in your appeal?

[starlord]

Thanks Ostell - apologies for delay - I've added a redacted front page of the PCN I received

There were no additional documents included in the PCN.

Here is what I sent as my appeal.

Dear Sirs,

I have received a copy of your Notice to Keeper/hirer xxxxxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxxxxxx

You have failed on several counts, to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.

Failing to deliver to the hire company the original Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act.

Failing to deliver a Notice to Hirer/keeper within the relevant period of 21 days as required by section 14 (3), and also failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a) of the Act.

Because of your failures you cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

[ostell]

Apart from the fact that you have claimed POFA fails for items you could know nothing about one way or the other. But at least you got 14 (2) (a) correct.

how do you know they didn't get the NTK to the registered keeper within 15 days? How do you know they didn't send the notice to hirer within 21 days after receipt of the letter from the lease company? From the timings I would say they did.

They probably rejected because you appeared to not know what you were talking about. Normally Smart drop quite readily if they know there is a POFA fail. Now you see the danger of modifying well used appeals

You ignore DRP.

Get the rest of the POFA fails and then list them all and another appeal pointing out that their Code of Practise is only guidance and does not have the weight of law. POFA is law and it gives no limitation as to a limitation of the time to appeal. They either accept your appeal or give you a POPLA code and you will get POPLA to uphold the appeal

If this gets you no where then just wait until the letter before claim. Pointing out that you had requested ADR but this had been turned down will not go down well

[starlord]

Thanks so much Ostell - you are right, I used something I saw on here that seemed to cover most bases - had lots going at the time on so didn't have much time for to check all the details.

One thing I noted from the Smart parking PCN details was that the apparent contravention was 23/08/2020 but the PCN was not issue until 11/09/2020.

I'll take your guidance and submit another appeal.

One quick question, and please excuse my ignorance, but what is ADR?

[ostell]

The issue date was the date it was issued to you, after it had bounced around between the lease company and Smart.

ADR = Alternate Dispute Resolution. The courts would expect you to use this rather than go to court and Smart refusing to do this would not go down well with the court.

Smart might not accept the challenge but it is lining everything up in case it goes to court.

I couldn't quite read that PCN you posted but I think there is no warning of keeper liability 14 (5) (c) and others. 14 (5) (b) is impossible as the NTK hasn;t been supplied.