DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: ian505050
Date: July 10, 2025, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now received an official rejection to my Appeal letter
submitted to Smart Parking Limited.
They seem to have misunderstood the definition of the 14 day
period, just like the DVLA.
I will await a week or so for guidance on here before completing
an appeal with the Independent Appeals Service, (IAS)
Attached is the rejection letter
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 10, 2025, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, Smart deliberately interpret PoFA to suit their
requirements, that’s to say that they lie, in the hope that
people believe them, give up and pay. They recently switched
from the BPA because POPLA upheld appeals on the misapplication
of the law, and now the IAS sides with Smart.
The DVLA is just incompetent.
#Post#: 80441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: ian505050
Date: July 10, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Its all fun and games. When this eventually gets decided in
my favour has anyone had any luck issuing a counter claim
against Parking Companies to recover cost for my admin/wasted
time. I once had a speeding ticket issued where North Yorkshire
Police managed to shoot a different vehicle to mine with a speed
gun and send me the fine as I was the next vehicle to pass. I
resolved this eventually after paying the fine and attending a
speed awareness course. I recovered all costs from North
Yorkshire Police as I proved they had made an administrate
error. It was several hundred pounds from memory.
#Post#: 80443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to the IAS with the following:
--- Quote ---
> [quote]I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not given within the
relevant period, and therefore, keeper liability under Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) cannot apply.
The alleged contravention took place on Saturday 31 May, and the
NtK was issued on Thursday 12 June. Under the interpretation
principles of "given" in PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(5), posting
must allow for normal service—i.e. two working days. This means
the earliest the notice could have been deemed “given” is Monday
16 June. That is 16 days after the alleged contravention. The
legal limit is 14. The failure is clear, quantifiable, and
fatal. PoFA compliance is binary.
>
> The NtK either meets every requirement of Schedule 4, or it
does not. There is no room for “substantial compliance”—nor can
the operator claim technicality or ambiguity where the timelines
are incontestable. The NtK itself is the evidence of
non-compliance. No further proof or rebuttal is required. If the
IAS assessor reading this genuinely holds legal qualifications,
then they will know that partial compliance equals
non-compliance. Keeper liability cannot apply where statutory
conditions are breached. The driver remains unidentified, and
the charge must therefore be cancelled.
>
> 2. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that
was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of
the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site
plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of
the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage
was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of
Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged
contravention, including requirements relating to font size,
positioning, and the communication of key terms.
>
> 3. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> 4. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
>
> 5. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 6. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
>
> 7. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this
really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict
proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186),
no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.[/indent]
>
> If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements
and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the
operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to
the growing concern that this appeals service is neither
independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
>
> In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: ian505050
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have submitted the Appeal to the IAS today and will await the
response. Thanks again for the input.
#Post#: 83245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: ian505050
Date: July 29, 2025, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IAS have now responded and given me a few days to provide
further evidence after they have received evidence from
smartpark.
The evidence smartpark provided was the original letter sent to
me in the post and the photos showing the signage in the
carpark.
Do I need to do anything at this stage before in for to an
adjudicator in a few days time or just rely on the information
above already provided to smartpark?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Simply respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> The Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the 14-day
statutory period required by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It was deemed given on Monday
16th June—16 days after the alleged contravention on Saturday
31st May—rendering it non-compliant. The Keeper has not
identified the driver, and Smart Parking cannot rely on PoFA to
transfer liability. There is no lawful basis to pursue the
Keeper.
>
> Statutory deadline calculation:
>
> [indent]• Date of alleged contravention: Saturday 31st May
> • Day 1 of the 14-day period: Sunday 1st June
> • Final day for delivery to comply with PoFA: Friday 13th June
> • Latest possible issue date (to allow for 2 working days
delivery): Wednesday 11th June
> • NtK was issued: Thursday 12th June
> • Deemed delivered: Monday 16th June
> • Result: Delivered 3 days late, outside the statutory
limit[/indent]
>
> PoFA compliance requires delivery within 14 days—not printing,
issuing, or misrepresenting the calendar. The NtK would have had
to be issued no later than Wednesday 11th June to be deemed
delivered by Friday 13th June. Smart Parking missed that
deadline. Their claim of compliance is not just wrong—it’s
demonstrably incompetent.
>
> If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements
and accept vague assertions, that will speak for itself—and lend
further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service
is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 88568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: ian505050
Date: September 5, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great news today!!!!
The IAS accepted the Appeal.
This was the response.
Thanks to everyone who provided help and input.
Appeal Outcome: Accepted
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant appeals this PCN on a number of grounds,
including that the Operator has failed to comply with the
requirements of PoFA and therefore cannot hold him liable as the
keeper of the vehicle. The Appellant has declined to provide the
driver's details. The Appellant is correct in that, as the
Operator is pursuing keeper liability under PoFA, the NTK must
comply with the requirements of the Act. One of those
requirements is for the NTK to be deemed to be received within
14 days of the parking event. The parking event took place on
31/5. Therefore the NTK would need to be deemed to be received
by 14/6. The NTK was issued on 12/6 and would therefore be
deemed received by 16/6. Therefore as this is not within the 14
day period, the NTK is not compliant and the Operator cannot
pursue keeper liability. Accordingly, I will allow the appeal.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this
Appeal and I am not satisfied that the Operator has established
that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore
this Appeal is allowed."
As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled
by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.
#Post#: 88573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Charge - Furzton Lake - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 5, 2025, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sense a worried IAS starting to apply the law and not their
backhanders to these appeals. They know their days are numbered.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page