Smart Parking PCN

[momy3]

Hello everyone, I am writing on behalf of an Aunty. I have found resolution here in the past and I hope she does too as she has been through a lot regarding this PCN

She drove the Keepers car and when she got to the Center, it is 3 hours free parking but you have to get a ticket, which she did. Her only mistake was punching in an extra letter whilst putting in her plate number. This was an issue she did not realise early enough, as she admitted been the driver and also saying she got a ticket.
as required and placed on the dash board. The case has gone on for a while and they actually sent Debt collectors to her home address. Fast forward a lot of letters between them, she has now received a new one few days ago, this time addressed to the driver. Please who can advice where she should go from here? I would appreciate. Thank you.

I will upload as many of the proofs as possible

[momy3]

The ticket printed out is attached and the 3rd alphabet is what I wrote about in the letter.

[ostell]

So you write back to smart, as the keeper, telling them that their alleged breach of non payment is ridiculous as you have the ticket to show that you paid and enclose a copy. You can also point out to them that they have failed to conform to many of the requirements of Schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act and therefore they cannot hold you liable. for the actions of the driver at the time.

How did they get the driver's details?

[momy3]

The new letter is to the Driver, because she owned up as he drover, she didn’t think there was an offence, since she took a ticket. Now the Driver is the one writing back, can she still use aboveboard information?

[momy3]

Above information*

[ostell]

She could appeal as the driver but it would have been more advantageous to appeal as the keeper. Point out that there equipment failed to register the VRM correctly and as the correct sum has been paid for the period parked there can be no breach of any contract. If they are claiming that the number is incorrect and was a breach of their alleged contract then implied variation their contract by the acceptance of a fee for a vehicle that they know was not in the car park,

There is no offence, this is a claim for an alleged breach of an alleged contract

[momy3]

Thanks for your reply.
It is actually free for the first three hours, however you must get a ticket (for free) and place on dashboard.

I wished I knew of the situation before the driver was identified. What you have wrote, in your experience do you think appealing as the driver can get ticket cancelled?

[ostell]

Despite their name they often aren't smart. Send as the keeper in the first instance and see if they cancel on that point. So you vary to say that the ticket was displayed as required.

Pointing out the failure at POFA, which only the keeper can do, may just persuade them not to bother.

[momy3]

Ok, even though a new pcn letter has been issued in the name of the Driver. I will ask the Keeper reply and state the above, which is your initial reply. The issue is, what if they cancel the ticket and go after the driver since they have the details.

[ostell]

So if they cancel a PCN then it is cancelled.

if the don't then nothing lost and the appeal using the fact that there was a ticket will be made by the driver

[momy3]

Great, thank you, very much I appreciate.

This is what I intend for the keeper to send to them. Please is it ok?

I am the Keeper of the car. Your alleged Breach of non payment
is ridiculous. There is proof of ticket printed and I have attached it.
I have to add that you have failed to confirm to many of the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act and therefore you can not hold me liable for the actions of the driver.

[ostell]

conform to, not confirm, Before you send what was the actual alleged "offence" ? As this was a free car park then non payment does not seem relevant.

[momy3]

The driver printed a ticket, the offence was that whilst typing the plate number into the machine there was an error of an additional letter

[momy3]

Thanks for the correction

[ostell]

No, what did the Notice to Keeper say the breach was. The machine was defective and added extra letters. Keyboard bounce perhaps. By issuing the ticket for a number they knew was not in the car park they accepted the variation of their contract by performance