PCN Greenwich Shopping Park, Charlton - Smart Parking Ltd

[mosschop]

Hello,

 

We received a PCN for parking 2 hours 21 minutes at Greenwich Shopping Park. I appealed, as I believed it was a mistake as we understood the time limit to be 3 hours.

 

They rejected the appeal, explaining that on a match day the maximum stay is 1.5 hours. There was nothing to indicate that it was a match day when we entered the car park. We also checked the shopping centre website before making our journey (greenwichshoppingpark.co.uk) which advertises 3 hours free parking. It also does not mention match days.

 

We drive a fully electric vehicle, and planned our journey around stopping at this car park to recharge so we could make it back home!

 

This is my appeal:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I received a parking fine explaining that I entered the Greenwich Shopping Park car park at 16:11 and left at 18:32 - a total of 2 hours 21 minutes.

 

It clearly states on the website (greenwichshoppingpark.co.uk) that parking is free for 3 hours. We checked this before making our journey. I believe the charge has been made in error as we did not exceed the 3 hour time limit.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

(My name)

 

 

In their reply they have provided a POPLA code. They have extended a discount period until 16/02/2017 which is £40, and £70 after.

 

Should I make an appeal to POPLA? Any advice is most appreciated. Thank you.

[ericsbrother]

As you have appealed to Smart then you should appeal to POPLA as this then costs Smart parking money.

 

Your appeal is quite simple,

 

 

" the terms of the contract offered to you by way of an advertisement on the web site and by the signage at the site was not breached as this allows for 3 hours parking.

 

 

The claim that there was a breach because it was a match day is simply incorrect because there is no definition of what a match day is in the contract nor a list of when these days are anywhere.

 

 

If there was a planning Consent issue such as with the Sainsburys car park at Selhurst Park then Smart Parking should be obliged to produce this as evidence of a variation of the offered and accepted three hour limit.

 

 

Any variation that is not part of a planning approval is an unfair term under the Consumer Contracts Regs because there was no pre-contract information regarding this matter and the offer was by way of a distance contract so the information is required by law or the contract is unenforceable"

 

. Common sense would dictate that if the claimed breach refers to a Charlton FC home match

then it would be blindingly obvious that the arrival time and the time for the vehicle was actually parked was outside the playing time of any likely match so it cannot be said that this rule is anything other than a deterrent

rather than an actual offer of terms designed to be accepted and so any claim would be an unfair penalty clause and again unenforceable.

[mosschop]

Thanks ericsbrother, I will give this a try and update this thread with any news

 

I'll write up the appeal later this week. I'm a bit distracted at the moment as my wife has started the early stages of labour :o That money is going to come in handy very soon!

[honeybee13]

I hope it goes OK, mosschop. Please keep us updated on both matters.

 

HB

[mosschop]

Phew, that was a hectic month.

 

Baby arrived after a long labour and an extra week in hospital.

 

Mum and little one are both well and enjoyed their first week together at home

 

I've been stuck in nappy changing limbo and finally got round to making the POPLA appeal. Unfortunately I've gone past the 28 day limit, as the letter is dated the 1st February.

 

Is it still worth appealing?

 

I'm filling in the online form,

but got to the part about naming the motorist.

 

Not sure if this refers to the driver or the registered owner.

 

Thanks for your help

[ericsbrother]

YOU ONLY EVER REFER TO YOURSELF AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER, NEVER IDENTIFY THE DRIVER.

TBH it doesnt really matter about POPLA, the idea of appealing to them is to waste Smart Parking's money as they have to pay for your appeal. By all means try but the code wont work so send the appeal through the post.

[mosschop]

Thanks again ericsbrother and apologies for the late reply.

 

I have not yet written to POPLA.

 

Since receiving the letter to reject my appeal, I have not received any further correspondence. However, they called a member of my family via DVLA to get information about the driver, and threatened that because we have ignored their letters (?) the charge will increase to £1000 if not paid within 14 days. Ridiculous!

 

Is this usual or is it something I should not ignore? Aside from the POPLA appeal I'm worried there's something else important I've missed.

[ericsbrother]

too late for POPLA now.

You say they called a member of your family? how did they call them and was that person the registered keeper of the vehicle? If not then you need to complain to the ICO about that flagrant breach of the DPA. You should also write a complaint to the BPA about the same.

If you want help you must be specific about what has happened.

[mosschop]

Actually I misunderstood what had happened. They sent my sister a letter asking for payment so she phoned them as she had no idea about it. She hasn't even passed her driving test yet

 

Received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd asking for payment. They refer to a November 2015 supreme court case in which a parking operator won against a motorist.

[DragonFly1967]

Don't worry about DRP (Derp!) the chicken that I ate last Sunday had more teeth than they ever will. Letters from those buffoons can always be totally ignored, it'll be full of bluff, buster, if's and may's and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You'll also notice that they're attempting to extort an extra £60 out of you, for doing nothing more than sending you a scary looking letter. Nice work if you can get it

 

 

Slightly more concerning is why they're writing to your sister. Is she the registered keeper of the vehicle?

[mosschop]

No, she's not the registered owner so I'm not sure why they have written to her. The only thing I can think of is that we share the same initials.

 

They have my details from when I appealed but I have not heard anything from them since (until the letter from DRP). Perhaps an honest mistake, an attempt to find the driver, or just plain harassment?

 

I am considering a letter of complaint to the shopping centre. They have a postal and email address on their website. Are emails as effective as a written letter?

[ericsbrother]

the Beavis case is mostly irrelevant but they love to quote it to frighten you nto thinking that they are invincible.

Now, if your sister is getting these letters she should complain tot he statutory authority that oversee debt collection and other financial companies, the Financial Conduct Authority. Also there is aanother body that sets out the guideleines for debt collection activity so another complaint to them as well Finally a complaint to the ICO for the misuse of her personal data. Once that ball is rolling she may wish to let the numpties as DR+ that she intends to sue them for mususe of her personal data as she is not the person they are after and she doesnt even own a car etc. The B's wont admit their errors though but hoefully the regulatory bodies will at least poke them and tell them to behave.

 

Lastly you must read the other threads here. You would then not ask about DR+ or about using emails. NO NEVER EMAIL THESE PEOPLE it only gives them a method of harassing you for free.[