Tweet
On the 11th February 2016 at 12.20 I had parked in Flower way car park Luton, operated by, Smart Parking. It was the first time I had used one of these machines where you have to put in your registration. I was not staying for long, so entered my registration number and put in 60pence for the hour`s parking. When the ticket came out, only the first digit of my index plate was showing (W). I was only gone about 35 minutes.
When I got back home, I emailed Smart Parking straight away and told them what I had done, I received no answer from them. ( but they did acknowledge the email when they put in there defence).
This is there evidence( Its quite long!)
Operator Name
Smart Parking
Operator Case Summary
On the 11/02/2016 the vehicle with registration xxxxxxxxxxx was captured by the cameras at FLOWERS WAY LUTON entering and exiting the car park. The car park in question is an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and Pay by Plate monitored car park. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created and sent out to the registered keeper. In the Appellant’ appeal to POPLA, the Appellant states that when they went to pay for their ticket, they were a bit confused, because this was the first time they had come across the Smart Parking Limited payment meter. The Appellant states that they followed the instructions and entered their number and put the correct money in for the duration. The Appellant states that when they looked at their ticket only the, "W" of their registration had come out, still the Appellant states that they put it on display. We note the Appellant’s comments and can confirm that the terms and conditions stated on the signage round the car park clearly state the full, correct registration must be entered when using the payment machines. As the Appellant failed to do this the Appellant correctly incurred a charge as they failed to comply with the terms and conditions stated. We would like to clarify that the signs clearly state that vehicle registration must be entered into the Pay and Display machine. Failure to comply with this will result in a parking charge notice. Additionally, the signs do state that “the period you must pay for is calculated by the ANPR cameras at the point of entry and exit. You must pay for the full period of time your vehicle is in the car park”. As a motorists it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they acknowledge the signage and the terms and conditions when using the car parking facilities. We note the Appellant’s comments however the payment machines generates a ticket once the vehicle registration mark is entered and the ticket has been paid. Once the details and payment has been inputted into the payment machines it is the responsibility of the motorists to press the Green button and confirm the details and obtain a ticket, the ticket would then print the details that were entered by the motorists. The Appellant states that when they got home they contacted Smart Parking Limited and told them what had happened straight away. The Appellant states that they received no reply and the next correspondence they had received was this penalty notice. We note the Appellant’s comments and can confirm that the Appellant appealed to Smart Parking Limited on the 29th February, 2016 which was rejected and responded to by Smart Parking limited on the 2nd March. The Appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 2:37:19pm and exited at 3:23:18pm with the duration of 45 minutes. The Appellant’s paid time at site on the date of contravention was 0 minutes, therefore not paying for their duration of stay leading to the contravention occurring. We can confirm Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states “the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the appellant overstayed and has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. Overall, we would like to clarify that Contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an underpayment for the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). As there was no payment made for the VRM xxxxxxxxxx.Therefore the PCN was issued for insufficient paid time. The Appellant’s total duration on site was 34 minutes and the Appellant’s paid time was 0 minutes therefore led to the contravention occurring. It is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for the correct Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) and for the full duration of their stay when using this car park. As you have failed to do this, and have therefore breached the advertised terms and conditions, we have no option but to uphold the Parking Charge Notice. The signs clearly state that vehicle registration must be entered into the Pay and Display machine. Failure to comply with this will result in a parking charge notice, as a motorists it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they acknowledge the signage and the terms and conditions when using the car parking facilities. The BPA Code of Practice October 2014 states, paragraph 34.4 states drivers must be given advance notice of all parking charges before they enter into the contract for parking services. There are signs at the entrance of the car park that clearly state the terms and conditions. There are an additional 24 signs situated around the car park that advise of the terms and conditions. By staying within the car park, the motorist is therefore, agreeing to comply with the advertised terms and conditions. The fact that a driver feels they had valid reason to park in breach of the advertised terms and conditions is not reason enough to cancel a PCN. The terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking limited as an agent enforces these. The terms and conditions must be adhered to by all motorists when using the car parking facilities. In the light above and evidence enclosed. Smart parking limited have decided to uphold the parking charge notice.
The reason why I have highlighted the paragraph in red is because. The photo shows my car entering the car park at, 12.20:16sec and leaving at 12.54:45sec. there appeal states the time as entering at 2:37:19pm and exited at 3:23:18pm with the duration of 45 minutes.
I also have the print out from the machine that I used, it clearly shows that at 12.22:00 W was entered into the machine and a payment of 60pence was made. The previous car with a W as the first letter of its index plate was at 14.09:00.
It was not long after that I received my PNC. I refused to pay because as far as I was aware I had paid. So I went to POPLA ,they refused my appeal as Unsuccessful.
Reason being
Decision
Successful Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Mark Yates
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is insufficient paid time, and overstayed paid time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is he paid £1 for the duration of his stay, but due to this being the first occasion he used the smart meter only the W of his registration had come out on his ticket.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking at Flowers Way car park, Luton you are required to enter your vehicle registration details into the machine on site when making payment for parking. On this occasion the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice to the appellant as no payment was received for the appellant’s vehicle registration. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. In this case, the operator is responsible for the effective management of the parking on site. While I appreciate that the appellant makes a payment of £1 for his parking on site, by the appellant’s own admission only the W of his vehicle registration is recorded on the ticket. The signage on site is clear that the vehicle registration must be entered. Therefore no payment is received for the appellant’s vehicle registration. I can only conclude that by not entering his vehicle registration into the machine when the appellant made payment, he has not adhered to the sites terms and conditions. As such, I can confirm the PCN was issued correctly.
And this is where I stand now, Do I take the chance and go to court or pay them £100.00!! ?
Thanks
Mike
Comment