DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: Lizalfie
Date: February 12, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK I have selected other and sent the message as above.
Will let you know how I get on.
Thanks.
#Post#: 59200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: Lizalfie
Date: February 21, 2025, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have had the following response from them:
Dear Miss ????
Parking Charge:???
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to
uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we believe that it was
correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions
advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was
received within the initial discount period, we have extended
the discount period until 10/03/2025.
We can confirm that the above parking charge was issued under
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). The parking
contravention occurred on 24.01.2025, the registered keeper
details were received on 31.01.2025, after which the PC was
promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012. If
you were not the driver at the time of the parking event, please
provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal
address using the contact details below. In the event that you
fail to provide these details, we will use the provisions under
POFA, 2012, and continue to pursue you the registered keeper,
for the outstanding balance.
We note the comments made within your appeal however, we cannot
rescind the Parking Charge on this basis. When using the car
park in question you must adhere to the advertised Terms and
Conditions, and it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure
they acknowledge the signage upon entering the site. We can
confirm that there is signage on entrance to, and around the car
park grounds. All signage is BPA approved and compliant with The
Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
All signs on site are compliant with the British Parking
Association (BPA) and The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice June 2024. Signs and Surface markings must be designed,
applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible
and unambiguous to drivers. Clause 3.1.1, of the single code
states that “An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained
at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as
appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and
conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, unless: subject
to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited”.
It also states in clause 3.1.3 a) that signs must be placed
within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. There
are several signs situated around the car park that advise of
the tariff, terms and conditions, we can confirm all signage on
site is BPA approved, and compliant with The Private Parking
Single Code of Practice. Please be aware all signs are set to a
standardised height, regulations and written in clearly and
intelligible language. There is no ambiguous language or jargon
on any of the Smart Parking signs at this site.
The car park is sited on private land, and the owners allow
access to the public, with use subject to the Terms and
Conditions of parking, which are advertised on signs situated
around the site. The PC’s are enforceable under Contract Law;
upon entering and remaining upon the car park you agree to the
terms and conditions which are clearly stated on the signage.
Your vehicle was parked in breach of these terms and conditions
therefore we must advise the PC was correctly issued and remains
outstanding.
We would like to advise that the site in question has a process
in place whereby authorised individuals can report vehicle
registration marks (VRMs) that they wish to be made exempt from
the advertised terms, conditions and parking restrictions.
Having thoroughly reviewed our records we can confirm that we
have not received any correspondence from the site/an authorised
individual regarding your vehicle, therefore your vehicle was
not authorised to remain on site as stated on the advertised
Terms and Conditions.
We can confirm that the contravention of unauthorised parking
occurred as your vehicle remained on site for 38 minutes. We can
confirm that this PC has been issued correctly and we have made
the decision to uphold the parking charge. The Terms and
Conditions of the car park are clearly advertised around the
site and must be adhered to by all drivers.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure
and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal
further with POPLA – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals
Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA
Verification Number provided below. Please note, should you
decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently
rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer
be available and the full amount of the PC will be due.
The verification number you will need to appeal is ??????????.
If the appellant decides to appeal to POPLA, they will need to
visit the website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how
to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms)
can be found. If the appellant is unable to access the website,
please contact us for further information on how to obtain the
forms. Please ensure that the POPLA Verification Number as noted
above is quoted in all correspondence to POPLA. The appellant
has 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to
POPLA.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with
your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish
to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:
• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to
Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading
Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37 7HE.
• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card,
please visit www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge
number to hand.
• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment
service on 0330 057 6230. Please have your Parking Charge number
to hand. Please note that calls to this number cost up to 7p per
minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.
Yours sincerely,
Smart Parking Limited
#Post#: 59257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: b789
Date: February 21, 2025, 9:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> General consumer protection principles state that prominent
misleading statements take precedence over less visible correct
information. The courts have ruled in various consumer
protection cases that misleading or contradictory information
can invalidate contractual obligations (ParkingEye v Beavis
touched on prominence and clarity in signage, which can be
applied here).
>
> The law requires that the notice must inform the keeper of the
correct 28-day period. The use of a conflicting and misleading
deadline on the front amounts to a failure to meet this
requirement, as it creates uncertainty about when the 28-day
period actually starts. A motorist could reasonably rely on the
bold and prominent incorrect statement rather than the legally
correct but less visible wording.
>
> The PPSCoP requires that all information on the NtK must be
clear, accurate, and not misleading. A misleading deadline
prominently displayed is an unfair commercial practice, which
should be raised in a formal complaint and then to the BPA.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: Lizalfie
Date: February 22, 2025, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to sound silly but what do I do now?
#Post#: 59301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: b789
Date: February 22, 2025, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I highlighted it above... you send a formal complaint to (not
so) Smart Parking. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal
rejection to submit a POPLA appeal but do the formal complaint
in the meantime:
--- Quote ---
> For the Attention of the Complaints Department
> Smart Parking Limited
> Unit 43 Elmdon Trading Estate
> Bickenhill Lane
> Birmingham
> B37 7HE
>
> By email to: complaints@smartparking.com
>
> [Date]
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Procedural and Legal Failings in
PCN Issuance
>
> Reference: Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number]
>
> Dear Smart Parking Complaints Team,
>
> I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the
issuance of Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number], which I received
as the registered keeper of the vehicle. This complaint concerns
multiple procedural and legal failings, including non-compliance
with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and breaches of
the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
>
> [indent]1. Background[/indent]
> The PCN was issued in relation to an alleged parking
contravention on [date], at [car park location]. The car park
has recently introduced a new parking system, and the driver was
unaware of the charges. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was
subsequently received, and I submitted an appeal disputing its
validity based on significant legal deficiencies. Despite this,
my appeal was rejected without proper consideration of the legal
arguments presented.
>
> [indent]2. Procedural and Legal Failings[/indent]
> A. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA)
> The NtK issued in this case does not meet all the statutory
requirements under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, rendering it legally
incapable of holding the registered keeper liable. Specifically:
>
> • The incorrect 28-day period for payment or appeal is cited
on the front of the NtK. The NtK misleadingly states that debt
recovery action will commence 28 days from the issue date rather
than from the date the notice is deemed ‘given’ (received), as
required by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) and 9(6). This
misrepresentation invalidates PoFA compliance.
> • Although the correct wording may appear elsewhere in the
NtK, misleading information takes precedence under consumer
protection principles. A motorist could reasonably rely on the
incorrect, prominent deadline instead of the legally correct but
less visible information.
> • Without full PoFA compliance, liability cannot be
transferred to the keeper. Since I have not identified the
driver, you cannot pursue the registered keeper for this charge.
>
> B. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP)
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice mandates that:
> • All information provided in a Notice to Keeper must be
clear, accurate, and not misleading.
> • The enforcement process must be fair and transparent,
ensuring that motorists fully understand their obligations.
>
> Your failure to provide a legally compliant NtK that adheres
to the correct PoFA timeframe is a direct breach of the PPSCoP.
This violation alone is sufficient grounds to demand the
immediate cancellation of the PCN.
>
> C. Unfair Commercial Practices and Consumer Protection
Concerns
> The incorrect and misleading deadline on the NtK constitutes
an unfair commercial practice under consumer protection laws.
The courts have consistently ruled that misleading or
contradictory information can invalidate contractual obligations
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] touched on prominence and clarity in
signage, which applies here).
>
> [indent]3. Demands for Resolution[/indent]
> Given the clear procedural and legal deficiencies outlined
above, I formally demand the immediate cancellation of PCN [PCN
Number]. In addition, Smart Parking must:
> • Acknowledge its failure to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP.
> • Cease pursuing the registered keeper for this unenforceable
charge.
> • Ensure that all future NtKs contain accurate information
compliant with PoFA 2012.
>
> [indent]4. Consequences of Non-Compliance[/indent]
> Should you fail to act on this complaint, I will escalate this
matter as follows:
> 1. A formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA)
once your internal complaints procedure is exhausted. The BPA
has oversight of its members’ compliance with the PPSCoP, and
this breach will be reported if unresolved.
> 2. A formal complaint to the DVLA, as any breach of the PPSCoP
constitutes a breach of your KADOE contract. This could result
in the DVLA reviewing Smart Parking’s access to vehicle keeper
data. Your failure to comply with industry regulations will be
brought to their attention.
> 3. An appeal to POPLA based on all the points mentioned is
highly likely to succeed, meaning that Smart Parking would be
incurring unnecessary costs for an assessment. It would
therefore be in both our interests to save time and money by
cancelling the PCN now.
>
> [indent]5. Request for Response[/indent]
> I expect a full written response within 14 days, addressing
all legal points raised in this complaint. Failure to provide a
satisfactory resolution will result in immediate escalation to
the BPA and the DVLA.
>
> I trust that you will take this matter seriously and respond
accordingly.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: Lizalfie
Date: February 22, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks, I have sent the complaint as advised and will let
you know the outcome.
#Post#: 59618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Charge - Roy Castle Charity Shop Heswall
DIR By: WhoLetTheScamsOut
Date: February 25, 2025, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also may be hepful for OP during popla appeal, smart parking
barely ever include landowner authorisation so make sure to
point that out during your popla appeal. From the 100s I’ve
gotten from smart parking over the years up to even last week,
during popla they never prove landowner authorisation in their
evidence pack.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page