Smart Parking Ltd ANPR PCN - Oakland Quay London E14

[LtColumbo]

Hi folks,

I would be sincerely grateful for your advice again having been hit with another Private PCN (this time on the outskirts of Canary Wharf).

 

1 Date of the infringement 18/11/2022

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 12/22/2022 (24 days)

 

3 Date received I forgot to note
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Not sure, but I don't think so
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes (2 photos in NTK)
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N
 

7 Who is the parking company? Smart Parking Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Oakland Quay London E14

Google Maps

GOO.GL

---

London

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

I cannot find any reference to an appeals body, just POPLA if Smart Parking reject an appeal.

……....

Additional info:

- I parked at the location for just under 15 minutes in order to drop off a moving-in gift for a friend who had just moved into the area.

- Based on previous advice received from this brilliant forum and reading other threads including this one, I have ignored all correspondence so far.

- I have been advised by Debt Recovery Plus that I have missed 6 "payment deadlines".

- I have now received an "Unpaid Debt - Reminder Notice" from CST Law which says, "If you do not pay by 23rd June 2023, please keep Debt Recovery Plus Ltd updated as to your current address to ensure that any court documents are correctly directed to you. This is vital as a County Court Judgment (CCJ) can have a serious effect on a person's credit rating."

- My understanding is that the letter from CST Law is not an LBC and I wondered if I need to do anything at this stage or just ignore some more?

Many thanks!

 

Oakland Quay E14 PCN 18-11-22.pdf

[dx100uk]

out of time to issue an ANPR PCN

ignore them!

unless / until PAPLOC comes

[LtColumbo]

Brilliant, thank you!

[lookinforinfo]

I am assuming that the docks are covered by Bye Laws which is probably why they were not concerned with getting the PCN to you within the 14 day period necessary for them to be able to transfer the charge fro the driver to the keeper.

Whether I am right about the Bye Laws or not, you as keeper are no longer responsible for the charge-only the driver is liable . As any one with a valid motor insurance is able to drive your car they will have their work cut out to prove who was driving as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person.

This is one reason why we do not recommend appealing since it all too easy if the driver and the keeper are the same person, to reveal that they were the driver. For example instead of saying the driver parked the car, they say "I parked the car....". 

Incidentally, there doesn't appear to me to be a reason why you got a PCN from them. Did the driver not pay or is parking permitted for Permit holders only or was there another reason?

Photographs of the entrance sign plus other legible photos of the signage inside the car park especially ones that have different conditions and any signs beside the payment machine would help. Though be careful not to collect another ticket.

[LtColumbo]

Thanks for your thoughts and advice.

I am glad that I didn't appeal.

This was my first and only visit to the Oakland Quay area.  It is a bit of a narrow maze around there and this was the only place I could find to do a quick drop-off to the reception of a residential building. 

Looking at Google Maps, I can see a couple of signs that say permit holders only but I did not notice these on the dark winter's night in question and there were no markings on the road.

Attached is an image which shows the approximate location and the signs from Google Maps.  Interestingly one sign says "Parking Charge Notice enquiries cannot be dealt with on site. Please follow the appeals process detailed on original correspondence."  Does this suggest that some PCNs are issued there and then? The PCN issued to me was via post (ANPR).

 

GMaps Images.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

Thanks for the screenshots of signs. I did go looking on Streetview, but like you say it's like a rabbit warren.

The first thing to note is that their sign is simply prohibitive. "Permit holders only".

"Permit holders only" for what? walking past the sign? driving past the sign? dancing? fishing?

IF the idiots ever try court, they would be using contract law. There is no contract on their signage.

Anyway, despite any of that, you were never parked, you were delivering. Presumably, you could easily obtain a statement from your friend confirming that if it were ever needed...

The other sign you refer to about "PCN's cannot be dealt with on site" is just waffle.

In some other cases on CAG, the victims have been advised to contact retailers, shops, takeaways, etc and ask for the PCN to be cancelled.

It sometimes works... but not applicable in your situation anyway.

Just be ready for a stream of ever more threatening correspondence, which you can ignore.

But as already said DON'T ignore a "letter of claim".

You can do yourself a favour by reading around the forum to acquaint yourself with the usual shenanigans the fleecers get up to.

Try our "successes" threads. Start with the most recent ones...

 

[LtColumbo]

Thanks for taking the effort to look on Streetview and provide these comments.  I have had another look also and it's still unclear where else one should stop to make a (reasonably heavy) delivery (thanks for highlighting the distinction between parking and delivering).

The NTK includes date/times and photos of the vehicle entering and exiting the site.  I wonder if the fleecers also monitor whether a car has stopped or if they issue NTKs to all non-permit-holding traffic passing through.

Interesting point about courts relying on contract law and the absence of a contract on their signage.

Yes, my friend could provide a statement confirming where he lives and the circumstances mentioned above.

Great, I look forward to ignoring their threatening correspondence and will follow your advice.  Thanks again.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

There is the classic case of Jopson v Homeguard where the Judge differentiated what is parking and what is unloading/delivering.If you check out the case you will see hat the Judge's definitions on parking fit very well into tour situation.

Just ignore them .They should know the difference.

You are likely to get any number of letters from their unregulated debt collectors and solicitors with limited knowledge all chasing you for money that you do not owe. 

Unless you get a Letter of Claim or a letter before Claim just add them to the pile safe in the knowledge that they should lose in Court if it ever gets that far.

[LtColumbo]

Thank you!  Jopson v Homeguard seems very relevant to my situation.

"The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes.

Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

I will continue to ignore them unless / until I get a Letter of Claim.

[BankFodder]

Open

[LtColumbo]

@BankFodder Thank you.

As a quick update to this thread, today I received another letter from CST Law more than a year after the supposed parking infringement.

I presume that the previous advice (quoted below) still applies and letters can be ignored unless I receive a Letter of Claim or a Letter Before Claim? 

On 23/06/2023 at 13:23, lookinforinfo said:

There is the classic case of Jopson v Homeguard where the Judge differentiated what is parking and what is unloading/delivering.If you check out the case you will see hat the Judge's definitions on parking fit very well into tour situation.

Just ignore them .They should know the difference.

You are likely to get any number of letters from their unregulated debt collectors and solicitors with limited knowledge all chasing you for money that you do not owe. 

Unless you get a Letter of Claim or a letter before Claim just add them to the pile safe in the knowledge that they should lose in Court if it ever gets that far.

Many thanks.

 

2023-12-11 CST LAW - reminder Notice.pdf

[honeybee13]

Yes, it's a threatogram that you can ignore. You did the right thing by asking though, please keep us posted.

HB

[dx100uk]

On 23/06/2023 at 09:11, Nicky Boy said:

Just be ready for a stream of ever more threatening correspondence, which you can ignore.

But as already said DON'T ignore a "letter of claim".

 

[LtColumbo]

Many thanks to you both.  Will keep you posted.  Looks like 2024 will be the 'Year of the Threatogram' for me 

[lookinforinfo]

I think you should be more upbeat than that.

2024 will be the year when you beat Smart Park.

[LtColumbo]

Haha, you're quite right.  Apparently, Saturday 10 February 2024  hails the start of Giap Thân (Year of the Wood Dragon), so I will be taking inspiration from the associated characteristics which seem to apply to members of this forum in general:

• Imaginative and unconventional thinkers who express bold ideas
• Charismatic and have immense energy
• Compassionate leaders who disregard status and power
• Witty, with a good sense of humour
• Have good fortune and luck

Thanks again!

[Nicky Boy]

Aw, shucks...

Could do with a bit more good fortune and luck though.