Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: A5599 on July 14, 2026, 11:34:55 am
-
Just rebut everything they state with which you disagree.
eg how could the operator have received an appeal on 29/06/2026 as claimed, and that it was from the registered keeper, the driver has not been identified. They claim they received the appeal on the day they sent the NtK, unless you mis-transcribed this.
Then point out their own dates in their rebuttal doom them from using PoFA 2012. And rebut the Elliot v Loake presumption again if necessary.
Don’t boil the ocean because they’re not going to uphold your appeal and you are in the process of an eventual court claim with a likely discontinuation if defended. Loads of similar examples of Smart & DCB Legal here.
-
Hello again, having submitted my IAS appeal, Smart Parking has responded with their Prima Facie case copied below. Although the machine the driver attempted to use was genuinely faulty, the site map and records for a single machine suggests that Smart Parking claim there was at least one functioning machine on site available to use. The log does not prove that all machines were functioning correctly at the time however. No evidence has been put forward to defend the claim that the appellant was both the driver and keeper which I see as the weakest part of their case.
How best should I respond to this prior to referring the case to arbitration? Thank you all for your help so far.
https://ibb.co/C3m1DNXb (https://ibb.co/C3m1DNXb)
https://ibb.co/rR0nCzJY (https://ibb.co/rR0nCzJY)
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 20/07/2026 11:16:12.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 29/06/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 14/06/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
On 14/06/2026 at 15:03 vehicle XXXXXX arrived at Willen Lake Car Park B (North) - Milton Keynes (See image in pack). The vehicle left at 17:11 (see image in pack).
The vehicle was on site for 127 minutes and 44 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 on 29/06/2026 (see copy in pack)
The operator received an appeal from the driver and keeper of the vehicle on 29/06/2026 (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. The appellant advised that the payment machine was not working however after reviewing the payment log (see attached) we can confirm that the machines were working as payments have been received from other users, there is also an alternative payment method via RingGo Therefore, the operator considered the charge valid and declined the appeal on 13/07/2026 (see copy in pack).
-
It is quite a lengthy response to provide and is duplicated but makes valid points. I would stated there will be no admission who the driver was rather than no admission I was the driver. I have appealed in the past with this term and also been more succinct in stating in no uncertain terms that I was not the driver. IAS May though unlikely favour you.
-
Thanks all for your help, it is much appreciated.
Having taken onboard your advice, I have pasted below my intended response to IAS which I plan to submit before the end of the week. If there is room for improvement or suggestions for refinement, I would be very grateful for your feedback.
Independent Appeals Service (IAS)
Parking Charge:
Vehicle Registration:
Operator: Smart Parking Ltd
Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I deny any liability for this Parking Charge.
This appeal is made on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability exists under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'PoFA')
The operator expressly states in its rejection letter:
"... the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not apply at this location..."
Having admitted that Schedule 4 of PoFA does not apply, Smart Parking cannot recover this charge from the registered keeper unless it proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the keeper was in fact the driver.
The operator has chosen not to rely upon the statutory mechanism provided by Parliament for transferring liability from driver to keeper.
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis upon which liability can attach to me merely because I am the registered keeper.
For completeness, I note that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 29 June 2026 in respect of an alleged parking event on 14 June 2026, a period exceeding the 14 calendar day limit prescribed by paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 to the PoFA for establishing keeper liability in the absence of a Notice to Driver. Whilst the operator has correctly accepted that Schedule 4 does not apply, this chronology further illustrates that Parliament’s statutory conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper have not been satisfied.
2. The operator has failed to prove the identity of the driver
The burden of proof rests with the operator.
The operator has produced no evidence capable of identifying the driver.
The front-facing ANPR photograph merely depicts an indistinct occupant behind the steering wheel.
It is of insufficient quality to identify any individual and cannot reasonably be relied upon as evidence of identity.
The operator therefore asks the IAS to infer that the registered keeper was also the driver.
Such an inference is unsupported by the evidence.
The standard of proof remains the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
No evidence has been produced which demonstrates that I was driving the vehicle at the material time.
3. Elliott v Loake does not establish keeper liability
The operator relies upon Elliott v Loake.
That reliance is misplaced.
Elliott v Loake {1982) was a criminal case involving extensive forensic and circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to a collision.
It did not establish any legal presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle is presumed to have been its driver.
Nor did it create a principle permitting parking companies to transfer liability to keepers in the absence of statutory keeper liability under PoFA.
Numerous County Court judges have rejected attempts by private parking operators to rely upon Elliott v Loake in this manner.
The operator's reliance upon that authority is therefore misconceived.
4. The operator has failed to establish driver identity on the balance of probabilities
The operator invites the IAS to infer that, because I am the registered keeper and have not identified the driver, I must therefore have been driving the vehicle.
That proposition has no basis in statute or binding authority.
The operator's rejection letter relies upon Elliott v Loake, yet that case did not establish any legal presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle is presumed to be its driver. It was a criminal case decided on its own particular forensic evidence and is wholly distinguishable from the present matter.
By contrast, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mark Edward, the court did not establish any presumption that a registered keeper is the driver. Rather, the court considered the totality of the evidence before it in deciding whether, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant had been driving.
That case illustrates the correct legal approach. The issue is one of evidence, not presumption.
In the present case the operator has produced no evidence capable of identifying the driver. In particular:
- The front-facing ANPR image is of insufficient quality to identify the driver.
- No witness evidence has been produced.
- No admission has been made by me that I was driving.
- No other circumstantial evidence has been produced linking me personally to the alleged parking event.
The operator therefore seeks to invite the IAS to conclude that, simply because I am the registered keeper and have exercised my right not to identify the driver, I should be presumed to have been driving.
That is precisely the type of presumption which neither Elliott v Loake nor Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mark Edward establishes.
Without the benefit of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA, the operator must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that I was the driver.
It has failed to do so.
5. The operator has impermissibly reversed the burden of proof
The rejection letter states that I have not produced evidence demonstrating that I was not the driver.
That submission is legally unsustainable.
The burden of proving the identity of the driver rests entirely with the operator. There is no legal obligation upon a registered keeper to prove a negative or to identify the driver where statutory keeper liability is unavailable.
The operator's reasoning effectively reverses the burden of proof by suggesting that liability arises unless I disprove that I was driving.
That approach is incompatible with ordinary principles of civil evidence. Where Parliament intended liability to transfer from driver to keeper, it enacted Schedule 4 of PoFA and imposed strict statutory conditions. The operator has expressly accepted that those provisions do not apply in this case. It cannot now circumvent Parliament's statutory scheme by inviting the IAS to create a presumption that Parliament itself chose not to enact.
Accordingly, the operator has failed to discharge the burden resting upon it.
Conclusion
Smart Parking Ltd. Has expressly acknowledged the provisions of Schedule 4 to PoFA do not apply in this case. Accordingly, there is no statutory basis upon which liability can be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
The operator has produced no evidence capable of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that I was the driver at the material time. The front-facing ANPR image is incapable of identifying the driver, there is no witness evidence, no admission by me, and no other evidence linking me personally to the alleged contravention.
Instead, the operator seeks to rely upon an impermissible presumption that, because I am the registered keeper and have exercised my right not to identify the driver, I must therefore have been driving. That is not the legal effect of Elliott v Loake, nor is it supported by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. V Mark Edward. Both cases turn upon their own facts and do not relieve the operator of its obligations to prove its case with evidence.
The operator has also sought to reverse the burden of proof by asserting that I have filed to demonstrate that I was not the driver. That submission is fundamentally misconceived. It is for the operator to prove its case, not for the registered keeper to disprove it.
In the absence of statutory keeper liability under PoFA, and in the absence of credible evidence identifying the driver, the operator has failed to establish that I am liable for this Parking Charge.
For all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Independent Appeals Service allows this appeal and directs Smart Parking Ltd. To cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
If parking companies were to rely on Elliott Vs Loake there would be an abundance of claims in county court.These are scare tactics sometimes used by the company and their solicitors. This was a criminal case where forensic evidence was used. I had a similar PCN and this case was mentioned in my appeal to IAS which I put the matter well into the long grass.
-
Research "VCS Ltd v Edward"
-
Hi InterCity125, your help is much appreciated.
Specifically, the concern is that on rejection of a IAS appeal, Smart Parking may bring about a claim in court on the balance of probabilities test. I would like to better understand whether an ANPR camera photo showing the driver is admissible evidence. Below is an excerpt from Smart Parking's T&Cs:
"Personal data in the form of registration number, photographs of you and your vehicle may be obtained to ensure compliance with your obligations when entering on to this land Automatic number plate recognition will be in use. The data may be retained for enforcement purposes..."
The clarity of the image is not particularly clear however, could the judge rule in favour of Smart Parking Ltd. if they draw similarity between the registered keeper and the driver and believe the two to be the same?
-
They won't have any evidence of who was driving.
That's why it is important that any appeal (made as Keeper) references the driver as "the driver".
-
Hi jfollows,
Many thanks for your advice. In the unlikely event it reaches court following an IAS appeal, what evidence could Smart Parking Ltd. present or reasonably rely upon if they wish to prove that the the registered keeper is also the driver on the date in question? Many thanks.
-
Note that there is no register of owners, you will be the registered keeper. Your appeal states this.
The safest advice for a broken machine is not to park at all, to go somewhere else. That’s sometimes easier said than done of course.
More importantly, as you say, for an event on 14 June 2026, a NtK issued on 29/6/26 is deemed to be delivered 1/7/26 which is later than the 14 days required by PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
There are many Smart late NtK cases recorded on this forum, so you should search for them. They will force this all the way to court, but likely discontinue in face of a defence before having to pay the court fee.
An IAS appeal will fail, but will cost Smart something like £23 and, in the unlikely event the case actually reaches court, shows that you have tried to avoid wasting the court’s time by following all the pre—court processes properly. Personally, I would simply appeal to the IAS on the basis of late service of the NtK. There are also appeals here which rebut the “Elliott vs. Loake” nonsense they claim.
-
Hi, as newbie and the registered
owner keeper, I recently received a NTK from Smart Parking Ltd. for an unpaid parking session on the 14/06/26. Payment at the machine was not possible as it was non-operational. Signage directed motorists to use Ringo as an alternative payment method. Unfortunately no photo of the machine fault was taken at the time though a description of the fault was provided within the NKT appeal. I invited Smart Parking Ltd. to provide maintenance logs of the machine in question should they dispute that the machine was non-functioning.
I initially challenged the NTK on 2 grounds. Firstly that the machine was faulty such that payment was not possible using the machine provided. and secondly, that the NTK had been issued after 15 working days, later than the maximum of 14 working days as required under Section 4 of POFA 2012.
My appeal was rejected by Smart Parking Ltd., maintaining that the NTK was correctly issued and admitting that although POFA keeper liability did not apply, they had grounds to assume the keeper was also the driver, citing the criminal court case of Elliott v Loake.
Please refer to the attachment links showing the timeline of correspondence.
I would greatly appreciate some advice on whether I have sufficient grounds to submit an IAS appeal and, if I have a reasonable chance of success of having this parking charge cancelled, how I should best respond.
NTK page 1 (https://ibb.co/DPfMjq2N)
NTK page 2 (https://ibb.co/QFPq2bwy)
NTK appeal (https://ibb.co/wZLykYfJ)
NTK appeal rejection (https://ibb.co/WpVYRvB5)