parking ticket from Smart Parking & Surrey Trading Standards

[Seminole]

Earlier this year we received a speculative invoice masquerading as a parking ticket from Smart Parking. I simply wrote to Smart Parking explaining the legal position and they immediately cancelled the invoice. Given what I've read here and the document they sent I thought I would pursue the matter through my local Trading Standards.

 

Having passed the matter through Consumer Direct, I heard precisely nothing. I had to ask twice to even get a TS reference number. I eventually made a complaint which was fobbed off. I have posted the level 2 complaint I made below and I have set out the response to the level 2 complaint in the next post. I intend to go back at them again and then refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

 

I write with reference to my complaint referenced above and to the letter dated 18 September 2013 sent to me by Lee Ormandy, Business Intelligence and Legal Manager. I note that Mr Ormandy’s letter concludes Stage 1 of your complaints process and I now wish to escalate this matter to Stage 2.

 

By way of background my original complaint to Citizens Advice was regarding a “Parking Charge Notice” received through the post from Smart Parking Limited also known as Town and City Parking. My concerns were:

 

1) This document is designed to resemble a Penalty Charge Notice issued by a local authority when it merely has the legal status of an invoice.

 

2) The Parking Charge Notice was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle but given that it is an invoice and governed by contract law, it should only be issued to the driver at the time the incident occurred. As such, sending it to the registered keeper means that it is a speculative invoice.

 

3) The Parking Charge Notice contains the following sentence: “This may result in a summons or writ being raised for recovery of the outstanding Parking Charge Notice”. This is clearly intended to mislead the recipient as to the company’s recovery powers. Given that this is governed by contract law, the correct recovery route is through the county court and this is extremely unlikely to result in any form of summons or writ but rather a county court claim. In my opinion this sentence implies that the company can recover the invoice balance through the magistrate’s court which it clearly cannot.

 

4) Private parking companies such as Smart Parking Limited very rarely pursue county court claims and hardly win any that they do. This is because they are rarely able to identify the person they should sue to the satisfaction of the court and under contract law, the amount claimed cannot exceed the actual loss incurred. It is very hard to demonstrate losses equivalent to the £60 to £100 set out in the Parking Charge Notices.

 

When I received my Parking Charge Notice I replied setting out many of the points above and challenged the company to commence legal proceedings. Within seven days they cancelled the Parking Charge Notice.

 

I referred this matter to Trading Standards through Citizens Advice because I was concerned that companies such as Smart Parking Limited are attempting to secure payment of speculative invoices designed to resemble council documents and threatening legal remedies that they could not, in fact pursue.

 

I was extremely disappointed that it took two attempts to obtain a Trading Standards case reference for this matter and then to find that I did not receive any acknowledgement or reply from Trading Standards. Having raised a stage 1 complaint I was astonished to find that my request for any documents relating to this matter produced no results. It is clear that Trading Standards have done absolutely nothing in response to my complaint except perhaps to include it within a statistical return. As a council tax payer this falls well short of what I would expect.

 

I note that Trading Standards claim that they are unable to pursue all cases and that they apply criteria in their selection process. Having reviewed those criteria I believe that my complaint satisfies two of them:

 

1) Given the number of private parking tickets issued nationally, this matter will certainly affect thousands of Surrey residents each year because other private parking companies issue almost identical documents.

 

2) Many residents will pay these tickets because they believe that they are legally required to do so. This is particularly true of elderly, young and other vulnerable residents who are unaware of the legal status of the document they receive.

I would be obliged if you would consider this as a stage 2 complaint.

[Seminole]

Further to your request for investigation at stage 2 of the council’s complaints procedure, your

complaint has been forwarded to me for response as agreed. As the appointed Complaints Investigator

I can make one of the following decisions: -

 

 Arrange for an investigator, who is independent of the service you are complaining about, to

carry out a further investigation.

 

 Refer the complaint back to the service you are complaining about with a request to

reconsider all or specific parts of your complaint

 

 Decide not to carry out a further investigation where I consider one or more of the following

apply:

 

 your complaint was properly dealt with at stage 1

 there is no evidence of failure by the council in delivering its services; this includes

failure to follow law, government guidance, the council’s own policies, procedures and

best practice.

 further investigation would not result in the outcome you are seeking

 there is an alternative route for resolution

 

 

My understanding of the issues you raised following the Stage one investigation is that:

 

1. You believe that Trading Standards have not done anything with your complaint or taken it

seriously enough especially as the penalty documentation resembles the Police’s format and

is misleading.

2. You feel that your complaint does satisfy two criteria for intervention and you feel that Surrey

Trading Standards should follow it up.

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

Background

 

Role of Trading Standards:

 

Trading Standards are responsible for enforcing a wide range of consumer protection laws in order

to protect the public against rogue traders and traders who have acted unfairly. These laws create

criminal offences for which a trader could potentially be prosecuted by Trading Standards; such a

prosecution could potentially result in a fine and/or a custodial sentence. Trading Standards can

undertake a variety of actions other than prosecution including: advising and educating traders who

may not even be aware that they have been breaking the law; and offering advice and help to

consumers. As Trading Standards services are organised locally, the way in which they carry out

this role depends on the enforcement policy operated by the Trading Standards service in the local

area. The action Trading Standards can take against a trader depends on what the trader has done

and on their own local policy.

 

Enforcement activity

 

Surrey County Council Trading Standards have clear criteria that they use when assessing

complaints and enquiries and when deciding on enforcement and investigation activity. Resources

for investigations are limited and, as a result, only a small proportion of complaints made to Trading

Standards will lead to further investigation. In order to decide which referrals to investigate, Trading

Standards apply their Investigation and Intervention policy. Given the volume of referrals they

receive, Trading Standards cannot look into every referral so have had to develop these criteria to

evaluate which referrals to look into further. This policy is regularly reviewed and the current version

is available in the public domain on the council’s website. The Investigation and Interventions policy

details a comprehensive and objective set of criteria that officers would have used at the time of your

complaint to make their assessment. Furthermore, Trading Standards Officers also use the Surrey

County Council’s Trading Standards Enforcement Policy as a method of determining the course of

action pertaining to enquiries and issues.

 

I have considered all the information available to me and I am writing to let you know of my preliminary

decision and to invite your comments. Taking each of your complaint issues in turn:

 

 

1. You believe that Trading Standards have not done anything with your complaint or

taken it seriously enough especially as the penalty documentation resembles the

Police’s format and is misleading.

 

I have reviewed the documentation relating to your complaint and I have scrutinised the

action that Surrey Trading Standards have undertaken and I can confirm that they have

shared the details of your complaint (through National intelligence gathering systems) with

the Trading Standards pertinent to the registered office of Smart Parking Ltd. This is located

in Perthshire, Scotland. I can confirm that to date, during 2013, there has been 1 report in the

Surrey area made via Surrey Trading Standards and 52 reports made from across the UK

directly to Perthshire regarding the company in question. I cannot comment as to what action

the relevant Trading Standards team in Perthshire are undertaking based upon this level of

enquiry, as that is outside of my jurisdiction.

 

2. You feel that your complaint does satisfy two criteria for intervention and you feel that

Surrey Trading Standards should follow it up.

 

As detailed above, Trading Standards (Surrey) have only received your complaint relating to

this company. In itself this is not enough evidence to bring about enforcement action. The

council’s complaints process does not generally question the reasonable professional

judgments taken by officers if the decision has been properly taken, and is in line with their

policies and procedures. On scrutinising the related information and considering your 3

comments, I cannot find that the officers involved have, in any way, acted unreasonably or

unfairly and have applied assessment criteria in an appropriate way.

 

Conclusions:

 

I am sorry that you feel that Trading Standards in Surrey have not responded seriously enough to your

complaint or taken the level of action you are seeking. I am recommending that Surrey County Council

take no further action in respect of your complaint. This is because I have found no evidence of failure

by the council in its decision to not pursue this matter, and it is my view that any further investigation

would not result in the outcome you are seeking. However, I will ensure your concerns are shared with

the appropriate officers in Trading Standards (Perthshire) to help inform their decision making.

 

If you have evidence in support of your complaint that I have not yet seen or comments that you think

may be relevant, please send them to me within the next two weeks. Please let me know if you need

more time to respond. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks I will record this complaint as

closed.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Louise Furneaux

Customer Service and Relationship Officer

[Conniff]

If you send them one look-a-like envelope or ten thousand, they are still look-a-like envelopes designed to fool the unsuspecting public.

 

I'm afraid TS are not the publics servant and rarely do little to help the consumer. They will raid a warehouse where illicit Vodka is being stilled, but that is for their image in the papers

not for you or me or the public at larges benefit.

[steampowered]

It sounds like it is just a numerical thing. The letter states that Surrey TS have received only one complaint regarding this company - presumably yours. I can understand why they don't want to investigate single complaints, if they receive more then perhaps they will take action then.

[Seminole]

Fair point. An alternative approach would be to press release the letter and see whether any of the local papers bite.

 

The problem here is that most people pay these invoices because they are ignorant of the law. They look like Council documents and everyone knows that ignoring a council parking ticket is dangerous. The question TS should have asked is not how many complaints they have received but how many of these tickets are issued. The answer is certainly in the thousands if not the tens of thousands in Surrey.

 

The fundamental problem here is that TS think small. I'm prepared to bet that if a small local business issued invoices like this, TS would descend on them like a ton of bricks.