DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104451--------------------------------------------------
Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: CB
Date: January 3, 2026, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2021 my son worked for Nandos and as an employee had to give
his registration plate to his employer to allow him to park in
the allocated Smart Parking site. On one occasion his car broke
down and so on that day of his shift he borrowed my car. When he
arrived at work he informed his employer of the different car
and they assured him that it had been registered on the correct
system. Months later I received a fine - I went to Nandos
(employer) who told me to ignore it and said that it will go
away. In september 2025 (years later) I received another
letter/fine from Smart Parking Limited from the initial offence
in 2021. I was obviously annoyed and went straight to Nandos. I
wrote to Smart Parking Limited with a witness statement from the
Nandos manager acknowledging that my son worked there and was
eligible on this occasion to park there. It has now escalated to
the point where I have to submit an N180 as a defendant to Small
Claims. Should I agree to mediation and pay up in order for it
so go away and avoid court? Any help or advice would be highly
appreciated. I have to respond by the 5th of Jan. Thanks in
advance
#Post#: 104454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: January 3, 2026, 9:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Advice.
Before posting in a forum such as this, make the effort to find
the appropriate subforum (this is clearly a "Private Parking
Ticket" case), find the cunningly hidden "READ THIS FIRST"
sticky at the top of that forum - which gives you basic initial
advice and indicates what information we need to be able to
offer meaningful advice, and post appropriately in that forum.
N.B. This thread has now been moved to the correct forum. Do NOT
start a new thread for this case.
The most obvious gaping whole in your account of events is that
it went from the odd random letter to the Directions
Questionnaire form N180. To all intents and purposes, your
defence to this claim is the defence that you must have lodged,
but neglected to mention. This cannot be amended without the
permission of the court.
Without seeing your defence, there is no point trying to give
meaningful advice regarding defending the claim.
#Post#: 104459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 4, 2026, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We are also going to need to see the original PCN as we need to
establish if they can even move the liability from the driver to
the keeper.
At the present time, your defence would simply be, "I was not
the driver".
They will probably pull out of the hearing at the last moment.
#Post#: 104464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: January 4, 2026, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> At the present time, your defence would simply be, "I was not
the driver".
>
--- End Quote ---
At the present time, the OP's defence would simply be whatever
defence he has already lodged, and cannot amend without the
court's permission. Do try to keep up at the back.
#Post#: 104469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 4, 2026, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's the Small Claims Track so the Witness Statement can easily
be used to provide either additional angles of defence OR
development of a skeleton argument subjectively mentioned in the
original defence.
My feeling is that the OP is looking for advice from the N180
forward - so he or she is looking things which could help them
either factually or strategically in moving the matter forward?
I would also note that the OP has specifically mentioned that
Smart are already aware of the fact that the RK is not the
driver in this case and as such it will be for Smart to show the
court that they are legally able to hold the RK liable is such a
situation.
#Post#: 104483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 4, 2026, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> it will be for Smart to show the court that they are legally
able to hold the RK liable is such a situation.
--- End Quote ---
Hence why we ought to see the original PCN.
Given the timelines suggested, it almost certainly isn't PoFA
compliant, as they didn't even attempt to comply until
relatively recently, but if we see the document we can advise.
#Post#: 104587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 5, 2026, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed 100% - Smart from 2021 will almost certainly will be non
PoFA compliant.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1