-
Hi all,
I've received the following parking fine for 'parking' over the allotted hours from Smart Parking in Hull/Anlaby.
From memory, I think the max time allowed is 3 hours.
Whilst I did overstay that period by a significant amount due to a car breakdown, there dates/times are wildly inaccurate.
The parking fine in question occurred on the 23rd June, however, I've only just been notified of it today due to a change of address and the letters not being forwarded on - having taken receipt of both letters today. The V5C was in progress of changing address and Smart Parking obviously requested info at old address.
Context:
This is the car park and I was parked in these bays directly outside of my gym: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8zAJpcfys3MKqRLR7
Upon returning to my car after the workout, the car had stopped working and was unable to be driven.
The parking fine states I entered the car park on the 23rd June at 11:57 and then exited at 17:53 on the 23rd June.
This is incorrect. Whilst there is a highly probable chance I may have entered the car park at that time on the 23rd for the gym, I certainly wasn't there for more than 60 mins I imagine, for a routine workout.
In actual fact, the breach prolonged parking occurred when I entered on the 25th June at approximately 9am and exited on the 28th June.
I had to get an Uber home from the gym, the Uber receipt is why I'm confident of the 25th June entry and I know for certain I exited on the 28th due to when I could get a mechanic out to the vehicle.
The original letter here from Smart Parking states a £100 fine:
A second letter received today from Debt Recovery Plus, again at the old address (but dated 7th August) states £170. They must be using 3rd class stamps for their mail:
Can anyone advise on correct course of action please?
Can I get it thrown out on the basis of incorrect claim from them on dates I entered/left the cark park etc? If so, how can I prove their dates are incorrect.
Thank you in advance,
Dan -
-
Search the forum for similar cases; with a “contravention” of 23/6 the NtK issued on 7/7 is deemed to be delivered on 9/7 which is more than the 14 days required if the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is to be used to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Search the forum for similar appeals to Smart and use these to write yours which I suggest you post here for comment.
Smart will falsely reject your appeal but you will be on track to pay £0 if you follow the process and the advice here.
Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. Appeal as the registered keeper only.
With 29 posts I’d hope you have some idea about this, but by all means post something here before submitting it.
Have nothing to do with Debt Recovery Plus, ignore them completely.
It’s not a fine, it’s an invoice for payment under the contract the driver entered into by reading the signs and parking. If the driver is not identified, then the liability can not be passed to the registered keeper because of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, -
-
Search the forum for similar cases; with a “contravention” of 23/6 the NtK issued on 7/7 is deemed to be delivered on 9/7 which is more than the 14 days required if the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is to be used to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Search the forum for similar appeals to Smart and use these to write yours which I suggest you post here for comment.
Smart will falsely reject your appeal but you will be on track to pay £0 if you follow the process and the advice here.
Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. Appeal as the registered keeper only.
With 29 posts I’d hope you have some idea about this, but by all means post something here before submitting it.
Have nothing to do with Debt Recovery Plus, ignore them completely.
It’s not a fine, it’s an invoice for payment under the contract the driver entered into by reading the signs and parking. If the driver is not identified, then the liability can not be passed to the registered keeper because of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
Thank you, I've been having a search around and found some useful information.
Those 29 posts, thankfully thus far, have mostly been to help friends and family who had found themselves on the wrong side of an incorrect PCN. So I'm not so well versed.
How does this sound for for the appeal, anything I'm missing, should be strengthening?
Also should I be providing my new address, or letting them know the old one is incorrect at least?
Dear Sir/Madam,
This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out below.
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions, yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking. Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect of invoking keeper liability.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver, the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation, reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The Claimant is unable to meet the requirements of PoFA as the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered to the Registered Keeper within the statutory timeframe of 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event. The Claimant's issued NtK shows that the alleged parking event took place on 23rd June 2026 but the notice was not even issued until 7th July 2026 - and therefore not arriving within the allowed 14 day period.
4. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking. The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.
5. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator asserts that signs are clearly displayed at the entrance to the site but has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance signage, no site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity to any alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed where terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer was made, let alone accepted.
6. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority. They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
7. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not. Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.
8. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof. They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges. They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the operator is fatal.
In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled. -
-
Good job of searching.
Personally I would simplify the appeal to point 3 only, with the slight addition of explanatory text along the lines of the registered keeper can not be held liable for the actions of the driver, who has not and will not be identified.
The reason I say this is because they're going to reject your appeal whatever you say, and they will pick and choose the easy points to respond to and ignore the difficult ones. Stick to the strongest appeal point only is my advice.
Keep the other points for someone who won't ignore them, not the IAS but the county court defence you'll probably need to file in due course. Then in the fullness of time it's likely the case will be discontinued by the claimant. -
-
Good job of searching.
Personally I would simplify the appeal to point 3 only, with the slight addition of explanatory text along the lines of the registered keeper can not be held liable for the actions of the driver, who has not and will not be identified.
The reason I say this is because they're going to reject your appeal whatever you say, and they will pick and choose the easy points to respond to and ignore the difficult ones. Stick to the strongest appeal point only is my advice.
Keep the other points for someone who won't ignore them, not the IAS but the county court defence you'll probably need to file in due course. Then in the fullness of time it's likely the case will be discontinued by the claimant.
Thanks, I'll just send the following info if you think this is 'strong' enough? Would you recommend submitting the appeal online or by post?
Also, should I let them know of the address change?QuoteDear Sir/Madam,
This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all 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.
The Claimant is unable to meet the requirements of PoFA as the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered to the Registered Keeper within the statutory timeframe of 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event. The Claimant's issued NtK shows that the alleged parking event took place on 23rd June 2026 but the notice was not even issued until 7th July 2026 - and therefore not arriving within the allowed 14 day period. -
-
Email is fine, and you must notify them of your address change and require them to update their records, otherwise you run the risk of a default county court judgment if they use your old address, because even if you're getting mail forwarded the deadlines are short.
An issue date of 7 July means that there is a presumption of delivery on 9 July, which is beyond 14 days as you say. -
-
Email is fine, and you must notify them of your address change and require them to update their records, otherwise you run the risk of a default county court judgment if they use your old address, because even if you're getting mail forwarded the deadlines are short.
An issue date of 7 July means that there is a presumption of delivery on 9 July, which is beyond 14 days as you say.
I've just checked a doorbell camera, and on the day of the supposed breach on the 23rd June (entering at 11:57am and exiting at 17:53pm), you can clearly see:- The car leaving the driveway at 11:50am with number plate clearly visible
- The car returning from the gym at 12:34pm, number plate visible but not clear
- Multiple doorbell triggers throughout the day with car still clearly on drive way, number plate not visible
- The car leaving the driveway at 18:02pm with number plate clearly visible
Proving the driver was at the gym less than an hour and the car was sat at home all day!
Should I, as the registered keeper, be sending this proof at this stage? I can download video clips from the doorbell.
Thank you. -
-
OP, deep breath pl.
IMO, you are potentially prejudicing the driver by your repeated references to them. Go back through your posts and amend so that references are always in the third person, whether to the driver or car.
Ring doorbell video shows the car can be seen at ** on *** thereby countering the creditor's claim...
The driver went to....
etc.
And we have no idea who the creditor is holding liable because we haven't seen this part of the NtK. -
-
OP, deep breath pl.
IMO, you are potentially prejudicing the driver by your repeated references to them. Go back through your posts and amend so that references are always in the third person, whether to the driver or car.
Ring doorbell video shows the car can be seen at ** on *** thereby countering the creditor's claim...
The driver went to....
etc.
And we have no idea who the creditor is holding liable because we haven't seen this part of the NtK.
Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't realised and now amended.
Here's the reverse side of the original PCN received from Smart Parking, if this is what you're referring to with that part of the NtK?
-
-
You are waiting for a Letter Before Claim.
Nothing to do now.
It's far too late to appeal so don't bother. -
-
Yes, but could be sent as a complaint, starting with 'I have recently become aware that your PCN is pants' (or perhaps a more carefully chosen adjective!). There's an outside chance they will fold and avoid the protracted process. Or you could just let them waste their (and DCBL's) time and money chasing it
-
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.