DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118263--------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: Parsnip
Date: May 10, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I hope you can give me some advice. I have just received a
County Court Claim relating to a Smart Parking PCN issued in
2022. I appealed the claim which was unsuccessful. After advice
I received on Pepipoo I ignored the subsequent demands which
have come occasionally since then.
It was a classic double dip scenario. I dropped my kids off in
the the carpark so that they catch the bus to school. However, a
bridge was out and the buses were not running, so I had to
return a couple of hours later to pick them up and drive them to
school. Both times, I was in the car park for just a few
minutes. The first 2 hours are free. However, the APNR did not
appear to pick up that I left and returned, so they are claiming
I was in there for over two hours.
In between my two visits I dropped my other child at his school,
went home, and met up with friend close to my home. All of this
was on the other side of the city to the car park and I could
not have done it with having driven back.
In my appeal I provided evidence that I dropped the other child
at school on the other side of the city, a statement from the
friend that I met up with, texts from my children asking me to
return to the car park to pick them up, evidence that the buses
were cancelled. I also provide evidence that the same thing had
happened to me before and has happened to others in the that
same carpark. Yet it was still rejected on the grounds that none
of this proves the car was not in the car park during this time.
Apparently the burden of proof is on me to prove it was not.
Should I now respond to the County Court Claim with my defence,
or is it likely that (as with the appeal) this will be rejected
in court as insufficient evidence?
Thanks in advance for your help.
#Post#: 118273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 10, 2026, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Your evidence will include your witness statement, if it comes
to that.
#Post#: 118324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 11, 2026, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you did not identify the driver, then Smart PCNs from this
period generally don’t comply with PoFA 2012 and so the
liability can not be transferred from the unknown driver to the
registered keeper. If you used “I” in your appeal, you killed
this potential defence.
Smart needs to prove that on the balance of probabilities your
car was present during the stated time period. Not the other way
round.
If you follow the advice in the link I already gave you and post
documentation for us to see, we may be able to provide better
advice.
#Post#: 118338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 11, 2026, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Smart needs to prove that on the balance of probabilities your
car was present during the stated time period. Not the other way
round.
>
--- End Quote ---
Smart will presumably have evidence of the [first] arrival and
the [second] departure. In a vacuum, that would prove the
presence of the OP's car on the balance of probabilities. It
would fall to the OP to convince the court that, on the balance
of probabilities, it was not.
Smart are members of the IAS. The process for the initial appeal
is that the PPC carefully considers whether or not he wants the
mark to pay him, before rejecting the appeal. The process for
the IAS appeal is slightly different, in that the IPC carefully
considers whether rejecting appeals regardless of trivialities
such as law and evidence encourages PPCs to choose them rather
than the more balanced BPA as their AOS provider.
A court of law has constitutional requirements such as
independence and impartiality, and a requirement to apply the
law to a reasonable assessment of the facts. This is *very*
different to the initial "appeals".
#Post#: 118349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 11, 2026, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with you, but until the original poster gives us
the information requested I’m not sure what extra assistance we
can provide.
#Post#: 118350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Council Court Claim received
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 11, 2026, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Taking his post at face value, his question is whether it is
worth defending or whether the County Court is likely to simply
ignore his evidence like Smart and the IAS have.
Whilst it is difficult to assess exactly how much weight unknown
DDJ would give unknown evidence presented by a defendant we've
never met, I would suggest that a combination of not giving
arguably incorrect advice, and explaining the difference between
a fake appeals process and an imp[artial court hearing would
seem to be a good start.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1