DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: WhoLetTheScamsOut
Date: August 15, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appealed at ias with smart parking and they allowed my appeal.
Ill post up the outcome in the next with hours.
#Post#: 85774--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 15, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Who told you to contact (not so) Smart Parking about anything?
This whole appeals process is part of the scam. Unless the
restaurant management gives you, in writing, that they are going
to ask the operator to cancel the PCN, then you are wasting your
time and quite possibly going to screw up the 99% guaranteed
method of getting this dealt with, without paying a penny to
them.
(not so ) Smart Parking have no way to hold the Keeper liable as
long as the driver is not identified. It really is as simple as
that. Whether Smart or the IAS reject any appeal, which is 99%
likely, their decisions are not binding on you and have no
weight going forwards. All they are hoping for is that you are
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will most likely pay
up out of ignorance and fear.
#Post#: 85864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: WhoLetTheScamsOut
Date: August 15, 2025, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“This PCN was issued on the basis that the Appellant's VRN was
not registered on the exemption list to permit him to park
there. The Appellant appeals the PCN on the basis that the
Operator is seeking keeper liability under PoFA but has not
complied with the requirements of the Act insofar as they did
not send the NTK within the correct timescales. The Appellant is
correct in this regard; the date of the parking event is
19/5/2025 and the NTK was not issued until 3/6/2025; 15 days
after the date of the parking event. The Act requires the NTK to
be sent within a timescale that means it is received within 14
days of the date of the parking event (taking account deemed
delivery dates). Therefore, I have no option but to 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.”
That was my result at ias. Just gotta spell out the timescales
and date and the peanut heads will just about be able to
understand it.
#Post#: 85865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 15, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done, thank you for posting the determination and it’s good
to see.
In the past the IAS has not upheld similar appeals, so at least
one of their operators gets it, or they’re starting to realise
that their biased approach won’t put them in a good position for
the future.
Also amusing because Smart jumped ship from BPA to IAS because
it often fails to issue its PCNs in time, POPLA upheld appeals
based on this but the IAS didn’t, until now.
#Post#: 85877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 15, 2025, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: WhoLetTheScamsOut link ---
>
> Just gotta spell out the timescales and date and the peanut
heads will just about be able to understand it.
>
--- End Quote ---
If you're lucky... We've seen at least one assessor this year
still trotting out Elliott vs Loake (yes, really, the mind
boggles). It will be interesting to see if positive decisions
become more common.
#Post#: 85901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 16, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I hope you bought a lottery ticket, as that was your lucky day.
#Post#: 88073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: September 2, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My deadline to submit my IAS appeal is the 11th. The restaurant
have advised by email that they have requested Smart Parking to
cancel the PCN but I have had no official confirmation this has
happened as yet so am going to have to prepare my appeal in case
it is required. I have drawn this up and would welcome any
comments as to its content.
To whom it may concern and without prejudice I wish to appeal
the above parking charge on the following grounds: -
1.
parked in any of the parking spaces controlled by the Mulberry
restaurant or their agents.
The car had been parked in the Sands car park which is
controlled by Parking Eye and the relevant parking charge had
been paid for the total duration of the stay.
In order to access this car park, it is necessary to drive down
a public access road at the side of the Mulberry restaurant and
the CCTV images which the parking agents relied on in their
notice to keeper only show the vehicle driving down that access
road.
2.
July 2025.
The notice to keeper was issued on the 15th of July.
Sch. 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is very clear and
states the following: -
(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.
(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.
On that basis, the notice does not appear to be compliant with
those regulations. Whilst it may not be of any legal relevance
the notice was actually not received until the 21st of July.
3.
restaurant to seek clarity as to whether the Sands car park is,
as I presume, not controlled by themselves and explaining the
situation and having sent them a copy of the PCN and proof that
the parking charge to the relevant company was correctly levied
they have advised in writing that they have instructed Smart
Parking to cancel the PCN.
#Post#: 88077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 2, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As an initial point, is there a particular reason you're seeking
to submit your appeal "without prejudice"? I would have thought
that, if it came to it, you might want to use any appeals as
evidence of your continued attempts to resolve the matter, and
Smart's stubborn refusal to do so.
Whilst I generally don't recommend expending too much effort
with the IAS, I'd recommend being a bit more thorough with your
points. Using images, maps and diagrams etc. might help you to
demonstrate the strange situation with the layout, whereby to
access the car park the driver actually parked in, they had to
drive past Smart's ANPR cameras.
#Post#: 88079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: September 2, 2025, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your response, thank you. I may have used that term
on the basis that a little knowledge is a bad thing & in the
belief that anything that I had written could not be used
against me and perhaps not understanding that their response
would also thereby be inadmissible as evidence. I had intended
to add a few maps as you suggested and will delete the without
prejudice from my written submission.
#Post#: 89516--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Ltd. PCN
DIR By: hops
Date: September 11, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal not contested, thanks to all that assisted.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page