DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115826--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 14, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the operator's response to my appeal through IAS.
"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 13/04/2026
11:59:51.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 21/01/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 10/01/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
On 10/01/2026 at 10:25 vehicle **** *** arrived at Cardiff
International Sports Campus - Cardiff (See image in pack). The
vehicle left at 11:56 (see image in pack).
The vehicle was on site for 91minutes and 1 seconds. No payment
was made for parking which is in contravention of the Terms and
conditions of parking at the site as displayed on the signage
(see signage). There are numerous signs on site (see site map).
An NTK was sent (POFA) on 21/01/2026 (see copy in pack)
The operator received an appeal from the keeper of the vehicle
on 19/02/2026 (see copy in pack). The appellant provided no
evidence that they had made payment for parking despite the
local signage clearly displaying the chargeable parking times
(see attached log). Therefore, the operator considered the
charge valid and declined the appeal on 14/03/2026 (see copy in
pack)".
Would anyone like to shed some light on this response and what
to do from here?
#Post#: 116135--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 17, 2026, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, any thoughts on the operators response at IAS or should
I just referit straight to arbitration ?
#Post#: 119734--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: May 26, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, so I have recieved an outcome from the Independent
Appeals Service and surprise, surprise they dismissed my appeal
against Smart Parking. Please can anyone help or advise as to
what I do from here? Thank you.
"Dear
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision
from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal
for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued: 10/01/2026
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a
position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they
are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The
Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the
party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that
matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator
fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly
issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an
Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish
that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued,
then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the
notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant
proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is
likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will
be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters
on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all
times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the
evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site.
These make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of
their stay will be issued with the parking charge notice.
The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal and I have
responded to each numbered point below.
1 & 2. I have viewed the notice and I am content it complies
with the legislative requirements.
3. The Appellant argues the ANPR evidence does not show the
vehicle parked and I agree. However, as it was on site for
ninety minutes I am content to infer it was parked and the
payment required is for the stay not for the time parked.
4. The Appellant claims there was insufficient notice, but
provides no evidence to support the claims. As explained above,
at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the
charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not
satisfied.
5. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing
on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the
Operator. In any event the landowner authority is provided to
me.
6. The charge is £100. It is always £100. However, whilst the
amount does not change the Operator agrees to accept less than
this if paid within a specified time frame. Once the time frame
has elapsed, as it clearly will with an appeal, that option is
no longer available to the Appellant.
The Operator is simply notifying the Appellant. It is not a
threat, it is a fact. If the Operator said nothing and the
Appellant subsequently discovered they had to pay the £100 they
would be rightly aggrieved they had not been warned.
7. This is a complaint. It has no bearing on the lawfulness of
the charge.
8. The burden and standard of proof is explained above.
If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my
sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may
only consider legal issues not mitigating factors. The Operator
has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle
leaving the land they manage, more than ninety minutes after it
arrived, and without a payment for this vehicle. The appeal is
dismissed."
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator
has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge
was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is
unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment
of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should
consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service"
#Post#: 120843--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: June 5, 2026, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know people are busy but do you have any advice of what to do
from hereon now that my appeal at the IAS has been rejected as i
certainly won't be paying the fine?
#Post#: 120846--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 5, 2026, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, you search the forum for similar cases.
From an earlier post in this thread:
--- Quote ---
> If you ignore Smart you will get letters from debt collectors
followed by a legal Letter of Claim.
> If you appeal within their deadlines, they will reject your
appeal and allow you to appeal to the IAS who will also reject
your appeal, followed by debt collectors and a Letter of Claim.
> In either case you will eventually need to file an appeal to a
court claim, so if you appeal now you have the basis for a
subsequent appeal and set out your position.
--- End Quote ---
Ignore debt collectors, reply to a Letter of Claim, wait for a
county court claim, file a defence.
The claim will be on the basis that the driver read the signs,
entered into a contract by parking, and therefore agreed to pay
under the terms of the contract. Your defence needs to be why
you’re not liable as claimed.
Oh, and it’s not a fine, it’s an invoice for payment under the
terms of the contract the driver entered into.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page