DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124589--------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: A5599
Date: July 14, 2026, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, as newbie and the registered owner keeper, I recently
received a NTK from Smart Parking Ltd. for an unpaid parking
session on the 14/06/26. Payment at the machine was not possible
as it was non-operational. Signage directed motorists to use
Ringo as an alternative payment method. Unfortunately no photo
of the machine fault was taken at the time though a description
of the fault was provided within the NKT appeal. I invited Smart
Parking Ltd. to provide maintenance logs of the machine in
question should they dispute that the machine was
non-functioning.
I initially challenged the NTK on 2 grounds. Firstly that the
machine was faulty such that payment was not possible using the
machine provided. and secondly, that the NTK had been issued
after 15 working days, later than the maximum of 14 working days
as required under Section 4 of POFA 2012.
My appeal was rejected by Smart Parking Ltd., maintaining that
the NTK was correctly issued and admitting that although POFA
keeper liability did not apply, they had grounds to assume the
keeper was also the driver, citing the criminal court case of
Elliott v Loake.
Please refer to the attachment links showing the timeline of
correspondence.
I would greatly appreciate some advice on whether I have
sufficient grounds to submit an IAS appeal and, if I have a
reasonable chance of success of having this parking charge
cancelled, how I should best respond.
NTK page 1
HTML https://ibb.co/DPfMjq2N
NTK page 2
HTML https://ibb.co/QFPq2bwy
NTK appeal
HTML https://ibb.co/wZLykYfJ
NTK appeal rejection
HTML https://ibb.co/WpVYRvB5
#Post#: 124591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2026, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Note that there is no register of owners, you will be the
registered keeper. Your appeal states this.
The safest advice for a broken machine is not to park at all, to
go somewhere else. That’s sometimes easier said than done of
course.
More importantly, as you say, for an event on 14 June 2026, a
NtK issued on 29/6/26 is deemed to be delivered 1/7/26 which is
later than the 14 days required by PoFA 2012 to transfer
liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
There are many Smart late NtK cases recorded on this forum, so
you should search for them. They will force this all the way to
court, but likely discontinue in face of a defence before having
to pay the court fee.
An IAS appeal will fail, but will cost Smart something like £23
and, in the unlikely event the case actually reaches court,
shows that you have tried to avoid wasting the court’s time by
following all the pre—court processes properly. Personally, I
would simply appeal to the IAS on the basis of late service of
the NtK. There are also appeals here which rebut the “Elliott
vs. Loake” nonsense they claim.
#Post#: 124595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: A5599
Date: July 14, 2026, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi jfollows,
Many thanks for your advice. In the unlikely event it reaches
court following an IAS appeal, what evidence could Smart Parking
Ltd. present or reasonably rely upon if they wish to prove that
the the registered keeper is also the driver on the date in
question? Many thanks.
#Post#: 124613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 14, 2026, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They won't have any evidence of who was driving.
That's why it is important that any appeal (made as Keeper)
references the driver as "the driver".
#Post#: 124657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: A5599
Date: July 14, 2026, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi InterCity125, your help is much appreciated.
Specifically, the concern is that on rejection of a IAS appeal,
Smart Parking may bring about a claim in court on the balance of
probabilities test. I would like to better understand whether an
ANPR camera photo showing the driver is admissible evidence.
Below is an excerpt from Smart Parking's T&Cs:
"Personal data in the form of registration number, photographs
of you and your vehicle may be obtained to ensure compliance
with your obligations when entering on to this land Automatic
number plate recognition will be in use. The data may be
retained for enforcement purposes..."
The clarity of the image is not particularly clear however,
could the judge rule in favour of Smart Parking Ltd. if they
draw similarity between the registered keeper and the driver and
believe the two to be the same?
#Post#: 124661--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 14, 2026, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Research "VCS Ltd v Edward"
#Post#: 124668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: Sander333
Date: July 14, 2026, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If parking companies were to rely on Elliott Vs Loake there
would be an abundance of claims in county court.These are scare
tactics sometimes used by the company and their solicitors. This
was a criminal case where forensic evidence was used. I had a
similar PCN and this case was mentioned in my appeal to IAS
which I put the matter well into the long grass.
#Post#: 124768--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: A5599
Date: July 15, 2026, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for your help, it is much appreciated.
Having taken onboard your advice, I have pasted below my
intended response to IAS which I plan to submit before the end
of the week. If there is room for improvement or suggestions for
refinement, I would be very grateful for your feedback.
Independent Appeals Service (IAS)
Parking Charge:
Vehicle Registration:
Operator: Smart Parking Ltd
Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I deny any
liability for this Parking Charge.
This appeal is made on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability exists under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'PoFA')
The operator expressly states in its rejection letter:
"... the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule
4 relating to keeper liability do not apply at this location..."
Having admitted that Schedule 4 of PoFA does not apply, Smart
Parking cannot recover this charge from the registered keeper
unless it proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the
keeper was in fact the driver.
The operator has chosen not to rely upon the statutory mechanism
provided by Parliament for transferring liability from driver to
keeper.
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis upon which liability
can attach to me merely because I am the registered keeper.
For completeness, I note that the Notice to Keeper was issued on
29 June 2026 in respect of an alleged parking event on 14 June
2026, a period exceeding the 14 calendar day limit prescribed by
paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 to the PoFA for establishing keeper
liability in the absence of a Notice to Driver. Whilst the
operator has correctly accepted that Schedule 4 does not apply,
this chronology further illustrates that Parliament’s statutory
conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper
have not been satisfied.
2. The operator has failed to prove the identity of the driver
The burden of proof rests with the operator.
The operator has produced no evidence capable of identifying the
driver.
The front-facing ANPR photograph merely depicts an indistinct
occupant behind the steering wheel.
It is of insufficient quality to identify any individual and
cannot reasonably be relied upon as evidence of identity.
The operator therefore asks the IAS to infer that the registered
keeper was also the driver.
Such an inference is unsupported by the evidence.
The standard of proof remains the civil standard of the balance
of probabilities.
No evidence has been produced which demonstrates that I was
driving the vehicle at the material time.
3. Elliott v Loake does not establish keeper liability
The operator relies upon Elliott v Loake.
That reliance is misplaced.
Elliott v Loake {1982) was a criminal case involving extensive
forensic and circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to a
collision.
It did not establish any legal presumption that the registered
keeper of a vehicle is presumed to have been its driver.
Nor did it create a principle permitting parking companies to
transfer liability to keepers in the absence of statutory keeper
liability under PoFA.
Numerous County Court judges have rejected attempts by private
parking operators to rely upon Elliott v Loake in this manner.
The operator's reliance upon that authority is therefore
misconceived.
4. The operator has failed to establish driver identity on the
balance of probabilities
The operator invites the IAS to infer that, because I am the
registered keeper and have not identified the driver, I must
therefore have been driving the vehicle.
That proposition has no basis in statute or binding authority.
The operator's rejection letter relies upon Elliott v Loake, yet
that case did not establish any legal presumption that the
registered keeper of a vehicle is presumed to be its driver. It
was a criminal case decided on its own particular forensic
evidence and is wholly distinguishable from the present matter.
By contrast, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mark Edward, the
court did not establish any presumption that a registered keeper
is the driver. Rather, the court considered the totality of the
evidence before it in deciding whether, on the balance of
probabilities, the defendant had been driving.
That case illustrates the correct legal approach. The issue is
one of evidence, not presumption.
In the present case the operator has produced no evidence
capable of identifying the driver. In particular:
-
identify the driver.
-
-
-
personally to the alleged parking event.
The operator therefore seeks to invite the IAS to conclude that,
simply because I am the registered keeper and have exercised my
right not to identify the driver, I should be presumed to have
been driving.
That is precisely the type of presumption which neither Elliott
v Loake nor Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mark Edward
establishes.
Without the benefit of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of
PoFA, the operator must prove, on the balance of probabilities,
that I was the driver.
It has failed to do so.
5. The operator has impermissibly reversed the burden of proof
The rejection letter states that I have not produced evidence
demonstrating that I was not the driver.
That submission is legally unsustainable.
The burden of proving the identity of the driver rests entirely
with the operator. There is no legal obligation upon a
registered keeper to prove a negative or to identify the driver
where statutory keeper liability is unavailable.
The operator's reasoning effectively reverses the burden of
proof by suggesting that liability arises unless I disprove that
I was driving.
That approach is incompatible with ordinary principles of civil
evidence. Where Parliament intended liability to transfer from
driver to keeper, it enacted Schedule 4 of PoFA and imposed
strict statutory conditions. The operator has expressly accepted
that those provisions do not apply in this case. It cannot now
circumvent Parliament's statutory scheme by inviting the IAS to
create a presumption that Parliament itself chose not to enact.
Accordingly, the operator has failed to discharge the burden
resting upon it.
Conclusion
Smart Parking Ltd. Has expressly acknowledged the provisions of
Schedule 4 to PoFA do not apply in this case. Accordingly, there
is no statutory basis upon which liability can be transferred
from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
The operator has produced no evidence capable of proving, on the
balance of probabilities, that I was the driver at the material
time. The front-facing ANPR image is incapable of identifying
the driver, there is no witness evidence, no admission by me,
and no other evidence linking me personally to the alleged
contravention.
Instead, the operator seeks to rely upon an impermissible
presumption that, because I am the registered keeper and have
exercised my right not to identify the driver, I must therefore
have been driving. That is not the legal effect of Elliott v
Loake, nor is it supported by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. V
Mark Edward. Both cases turn upon their own facts and do not
relieve the operator of its obligations to prove its case with
evidence.
The operator has also sought to reverse the burden of proof by
asserting that I have filed to demonstrate that I was not the
driver. That submission is fundamentally misconceived. It is for
the operator to prove its case, not for the registered keeper to
disprove it.
In the absence of statutory keeper liability under PoFA, and in
the absence of credible evidence identifying the driver, the
operator has failed to establish that I am liable for this
Parking Charge.
For all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the
Independent Appeals Service allows this appeal and directs Smart
Parking Ltd. To cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
#Post#: 124770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected despite no POFA keeper
liability.
DIR By: Sander333
Date: July 15, 2026, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is quite a lengthy response to provide and is duplicated but
makes valid points. I would stated there will be no admission
who the driver was rather than no admission I was the driver. I
have appealed in the past with this term and also been more
succinct in stating in no uncertain terms that I was not the
driver. IAS May though unlikely favour you.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1