DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128053--------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 17, 2026, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I've received the following parking fine for 'parking' over the
allotted hours from Smart Parking in Hull/Anlaby.
From memory, I think the max time allowed is 3 hours.
Whilst I did overstay that period by a significant amount due to
a car breakdown, there dates/times are wildly inaccurate.
The parking fine in question occurred on the 23rd June, however,
I've only just been notified of it today due to a change of
address and the letters not being forwarded on - having taken
receipt of both letters today. The V5C was in progress of
changing address and Smart Parking obviously requested info at
old address.
Context:
This is the car park and I was parked in these bays directly
outside of my gym:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/8zAJpcfys3MKqRLR7
<br
/>
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/8zAJpcfys3MKqRLR7
Upon returning to my car after the workout, the car had stopped
working and was unable to be driven.
The parking fine states I entered the car park on the 23rd June
at 11:57 and then exited at 17:53 on the 23rd June.
This is incorrect. Whilst there is a highly probable chance I
may have entered the car park at that time on the 23rd for the
gym, I certainly wasn't there for more than 60 mins I imagine,
for a routine workout.
In actual fact, the breach prolonged parking occurred when I
entered on the 25th June at approximately 9am and exited on the
28th June.
I had to get an Uber home from the gym, the Uber receipt is why
I'm confident of the 25th June entry and I know for certain I
exited on the 28th due to when I could get a mechanic out to the
vehicle.
The original letter here from Smart Parking states a £100 fine:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/PrDKZyn3/1st.jpg
A second letter received today from Debt Recovery Plus, again at
the old address (but dated 7th August) states £170. They must be
using 3rd class stamps for their mail:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/y8PmXrQV/2nd.jpg
Can anyone advise on correct course of action please?
Can I get it thrown out on the basis of incorrect claim from
them on dates I entered/left the cark park etc? If so, how can I
prove their dates are incorrect.
Thank you in advance,
Dan
#Post#: 128063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 17, 2026, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Search the forum for similar cases; with a “contravention” of
23/6 the NtK issued on 7/7 is deemed to be delivered on 9/7
which is more than the 14 days required if the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 is to be used to transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Search the forum for similar appeals to Smart and use these to
write yours which I suggest you post here for comment.
Smart will falsely reject your appeal but you will be on track
to pay £0 if you follow the process and the advice here.
Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. Appeal as the
registered keeper only.
With 29 posts I’d hope you have some idea about this, but by all
means post something here before submitting it.
Have nothing to do with Debt Recovery Plus, ignore them
completely.
It’s not a fine, it’s an invoice for payment under the contract
the driver entered into by reading the signs and parking. If the
driver is not identified, then the liability can not be passed
to the registered keeper because of non-compliance with PoFA
2012,
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
#Post#: 128079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 17, 2026, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Search the forum for similar cases; with a “contravention” of
23/6 the NtK issued on 7/7 is deemed to be delivered on 9/7
which is more than the 14 days required if the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 is to be used to transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the registered keeper.
>
> Search the forum for similar appeals to Smart and use these to
write yours which I suggest you post here for comment.
>
> Smart will falsely reject your appeal but you will be on track
to pay £0 if you follow the process and the advice here.
>
> Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. Appeal as the
registered keeper only.
>
> With 29 posts I’d hope you have some idea about this, but by
all means post something here before submitting it.
>
> Have nothing to do with Debt Recovery Plus, ignore them
completely.
>
> It’s not a fine, it’s an invoice for payment under the
contract the driver entered into by reading the signs and
parking. If the driver is not identified, then the liability can
not be passed to the registered keeper because of non-compliance
with PoFA 2012,
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you, I've been having a search around and found some
useful information.
Those 29 posts, thankfully thus far, have mostly been to help
friends and family who had found themselves on the wrong side of
an incorrect PCN. So I'm not so well versed.
How does this sound for for the appeal, anything I'm missing,
should be strengthening?
Also should I be providing my new address, or letting them know
the old one is incorrect at least?
Dear Sir/Madam,
This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission
is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the
burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The
Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out
below.
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance
on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions,
yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not
been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of
parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of
entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot
prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant
time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a
space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking.
Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect
of invoking keeper liability.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory
invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting
the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver,
the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to
provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the
statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a
misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that
does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise
to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s
subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation,
reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The Claimant is unable to meet the requirements of PoFA as
the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered to the
Registered Keeper within the statutory timeframe of 14 days from
the date of the alleged parking event. The Claimant's issued NtK
shows that the alleged parking event took place on 23rd June
2026 but the notice was not even issued until 7th July 2026 -
and therefore not arriving within the allowed 14 day period.
4. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking.
The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing
the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not
establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it
occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is
incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the
factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms
allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.
5. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator
asserts that signs are clearly displayed at the entrance to the
site but has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance
signage, no site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity
to any alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed
where terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The
operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer
was made, let alone accepted.
6. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority.
They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking
charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the
landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The
operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their
right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on
this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
7. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect
of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the
keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That
is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has
complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not.
Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is
improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the
keeper.
8. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof.
They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms
were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach
occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges.
They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning
the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the
operator is fatal.
In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence
is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and
legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability
exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or
legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must
therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
#Post#: 128098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 18, 2026, 1:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good job of searching.
Personally I would simplify the appeal to point 3 only, with the
slight addition of explanatory text along the lines of the
registered keeper can not be held liable for the actions of the
driver, who has not and will not be identified.
The reason I say this is because they're going to reject your
appeal whatever you say, and they will pick and choose the easy
points to respond to and ignore the difficult ones. Stick to the
strongest appeal point only is my advice.
Keep the other points for someone who won't ignore them, not the
IAS but the county court defence you'll probably need to file in
due course. Then in the fullness of time it's likely the case
will be discontinued by the claimant.
#Post#: 128102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 18, 2026, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Good job of searching.
>
> Personally I would simplify the appeal to point 3 only, with
the slight addition of explanatory text along the lines of the
registered keeper can not be held liable for the actions of the
driver, who has not and will not be identified.
>
> The reason I say this is because they're going to reject your
appeal whatever you say, and they will pick and choose the easy
points to respond to and ignore the difficult ones. Stick to the
strongest appeal point only is my advice.
>
> Keep the other points for someone who won't ignore them, not
the IAS but the county court defence you'll probably need to
file in due course. Then in the fullness of time it's likely the
case will be discontinued by the claimant.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, I'll just send the following info if you think this is
'strong' enough? Would you recommend submitting the appeal
online or by post?
Also, should I let them know of the address change?
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No
admission is made as to the identity of the driver. As your
Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all
requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of
the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial
compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to
who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.
>
> The Claimant is unable to meet the requirements of PoFA as the
Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered to the
Registered Keeper within the statutory timeframe of 14 days from
the date of the alleged parking event. The Claimant's issued NtK
shows that the alleged parking event took place on 23rd June
2026 but the notice was not even issued until 7th July 2026 -
and therefore not arriving within the allowed 14 day period.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 128106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 18, 2026, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Email is fine, and you must notify them of your address change
and require them to update their records, otherwise you run the
risk of a default county court judgment if they use your old
address, because even if you're getting mail forwarded the
deadlines are short.
An issue date of 7 July means that there is a presumption of
delivery on 9 July, which is beyond 14 days as you say.
#Post#: 128183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 19, 2026, 3:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Email is fine, and you must notify them of your address change
and require them to update their records, otherwise you run the
risk of a default county court judgment if they use your old
address, because even if you're getting mail forwarded the
deadlines are short.
>
> An issue date of 7 July means that there is a presumption of
delivery on 9 July, which is beyond 14 days as you say.
>
--- End Quote ---
I've just checked a doorbell camera, and on the day of the
supposed breach on the 23rd June (entering at 11:57am and
exiting at 17:53pm), you can clearly see:
- The car leaving the driveway at 11:50am with number plate
clearly visible
- The car returning from the gym at 12:34pm, number plate
visible but not clear
- Multiple doorbell triggers throughout the day with car still
clearly on drive way, number plate not visible
- The car leaving the driveway at 18:02pm with number plate
clearly visible
Proving the driver was at the gym less than an hour and the car
was sat at home all day!
Should I, as the registered keeper, be sending this proof at
this stage? I can download video clips from the doorbell.
Thank you.
#Post#: 128188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 19, 2026, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, deep breath pl.
IMO, you are potentially prejudicing the driver by your repeated
references to them. Go back through your posts and amend so that
references are always in the third person, whether to the driver
or car.
Ring doorbell video shows the car can be seen at ** on ***
thereby countering the creditor's claim...
The driver went to....
etc.
And we have no idea who the creditor is holding liable because
we haven't seen this part of the NtK.
#Post#: 128261--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 19, 2026, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> OP, deep breath pl.
>
> IMO, you are potentially prejudicing the driver by your
repeated references to them. Go back through your posts and
amend so that references are always in the third person, whether
to the driver or car.
>
> Ring doorbell video shows the car can be seen at ** on ***
thereby countering the creditor's claim...
>
> The driver went to....
>
> etc.
>
> And we have no idea who the creditor is holding liable because
we haven't seen this part of the NtK.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't realised and now amended.
Here's the reverse side of the original PCN received from Smart
Parking, if this is what you're referring to with that part of
the NtK?
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/vH724D8j/3rd.jpg
#Post#: 128288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Hull/Anlaby
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 20, 2026, 2:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are waiting for a Letter Before Claim.
Nothing to do now.
It's far too late to appeal so don't bother.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page