DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81955--------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: July 21, 2025, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As the registered keeper of a car that was issued with a parking
charge notice from a private parking company, I would welcome
some advice. The notice alleges an overstay in a car park for
the Mulberry restaurant in Saundersfoot, SA69 9HG on the 2nd of
July 2025 between 14:40 and 16:30 hours. This overstay was
allegedly backed up by CCTV.
I am advised the driver parked in a car park adjacent to that
location but to the best of their knowledge the only way of
accessing the other car park is through a narrow alleyway which
also allows access to the Mulberry restaurant car park. The car
park where vehicle was parked is the Sands car park in
Saundersfoot and this is controlled by a separate company,
Parkingeye. The driver has a bank statement showing a payment to
parkingeye and having spoken to their bank the bank confirms
that that payment was made at 14:42, two minutes after the
arrival time. The ticket purchased & issued by the machine on
that site is no longer available.
The vehicle was never parked in the Mulberry car park and before
formally contesting the matter I would welcome whether any other
advice should be taken on board or whether any relevant
conditions on the parking company issuing the notice have not
been complied with.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: July 21, 2025, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: Dave65
Date: July 21, 2025, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ymm, contravention 02-07, issued 15-07, presumed delivery on
17-07, 1 day out to hold the keeper liable.
#Post#: 81969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: July 21, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> Ymm, contravention 02-07, issued 15-07, presumed delivery on
17-07, 1 day out to hold the keeper liable.
>
--- End Quote ---
It was only delivered today to the R/K address so I am dubious
as to the claim it was issued on the 15th.
#Post#: 81977--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: July 21, 2025, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter. I tis the 'deemed' date of delivery that counts.
(not so) Smart Parking are utterly incompetent when it comes to
understanding of PoFA.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the 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. Smart Parking has relied on contract law
allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Smart Parking have no hope should you stupidly try to litigate
this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste
of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
Come back when that is rejected for the IAS kangaroo court
appeal. That will be rejected too but if you continue to follow
the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to
(not so) Smart Parking. However, it will be a protracted process
and will most likely involve a claim against you which is easily
defended before they eventually discontinue or it is struck out.
As they are claiming Keeper liability under PoFA when it is
impossible to do so due to their failure to give the notice
within the relevant period, you should submit a formal complaint
about them to the DVLA and cite their breach of the PPSCoP
section 8.1.1(d) and therefore breach of the KADOE contract.
You can search the forum for examples of these DVLA complaints.
#Post#: 81981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 21, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the IAS appeal when it gets to thay it'd be worth throwing
in the point about their being no parking event in the first
place. Where a meritorious defence exists, getting it in play
alongside any technical arguments slightly increases the chances
of it being put in the "too much effort" pile.
#Post#: 85275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: August 12, 2025, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not surprisingly they have declined my initial appeal.
#Post#: 85277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 12, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The normal lie from Smart:
--- Quote ---
> We can confirm that the above parking charge was issued under
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). The parking
contravention occurred on 02/07/2025, the registered keeper
details were received on 10/07/2025, after which the PC was
promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012.
--- End Quote ---
The date on which “the registered keeper details were received”
is irrelevant.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
--- Quote ---
> (4)The notice must be given by—
>
> (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current
address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period;
or
>
> (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the
keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the
relevant period.
>
> (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)
is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on
which the specified period of parking ended.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose
“working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Clearly, as @DWMB2 stated above, your IAS appeal could start
with the fact the driver wasn’t parked in the car park in the
first place.
#Post#: 85291--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Clearly, as [member=103]DWMB2[/member] stated above, your IAS
appeal could start with the fact the driver wasn't parked in the
car park in the first place.
>
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely - technical arguments around PoFA are perfectly valid
and should certainly be raised, but the fact that the vehicle
wasn't even in the car park alleged is such an obvious appeal
point that this should in my view be front and centre.
#Post#: 85762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: August 15, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Following the expected rejection of my appeal I contacted the
restaurant concerned asking for confirmation that they were not
the landowner nor had any control over the car park where the
vehicle was parked and also complaining about the actions of
Smart Parking Limited. In fairness they replied almost straight
away, asking for a copy of the PCN and a copy of the parking
ticket that was obtained from the car park where the car
actually was. Whilst not referring in any way to who the driver
was those details have been supplied and they have said they
will contact smart parking and get back to me as soon as
possible. I also emailed Smart parking asking them for
confirmation that the Sands car park is not controlled by their
land owner and of course they said they would not provide that
information.
I will leave it a couple of days to see if I hear back from the
restaurant, but in order that I can prepare for the IAS appeal
process apart from the anomaly with the notice being served late
and also the obvious factor that I do not believe the car was
parked in any of the spaces allocated to the restaurant, is
there anything else that I should mention? Thank you in
anticipation.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page