Here's a draft for the BPA. You'll need to fill in details where there are [SQUARE BRACKETS]. I have also suggested a number of Appendices, which you should attach alongside your complaint. See if there are any breaches I may have missed.
Dear BPA
This is a formal complaint submitted on behalf of [COMPANY NAME], in respect of repeated breaches of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) by Smart Parking, in both the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice, and their subsequent handling of an appeal and complaint.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an attempt to appeal the charge (a POPLA appeal has been submitted separately), this is a complaint about Smart’s processes and communications, which are in breach of the PPSSCoP.
I have summarised the breaches of the PPSSCoP as follows:
Breach #1: Parking Charge Notice
[COMPANY NAME] were issued a PCN (Appendix 1), as the registered keeper of the vehicle, for an alleged parking event. The parking event took place on Thursday, 6th February 2025, and the PCN was issued on Wednesday, 19th February 2025, and is therefore presumed delivered on Friday 21st February 2025. In order to hold [COMPANY NAME] liable as the registered keeper, Smart Parking must comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA).
PoFA states:
9(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.
As the notice was issued on Wednesday 19th February, then as per Paragraph 9(6), it is presumed delivered on Friday 21st February 2025. The notice has therefore been delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days, and accordingly there can be no keeper liability under PoFA. Despite this, the PCN issued by Smart Parking falsely claimed to be able to hold us liable as the registered keeper under PoFA.
This is in direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP, which expressly prohibits a parking operator from serving notices that state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance.
Breach #2: First response to appeal
Following receipt of the PCN, [COMPANY NAME] appealed as the registered keeper, pointing out the lack of liability under PoFA (Appendix 2). On [DATE], Smart Parking responded via email (Appendix 3).
This correspondence repeated the false claim that they are able to use PoFA to hold the keeper liable, and further compounded this claim by suggesting that merely issuing the notice within 14 days of the parking incident is sufficient. As already outlined above, PoFA requires that the notice is delivered within 14 days, not merely issued.
This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breach #1 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.
Breach #3: Second response to appeal
On [DATE], Smart Parking rejected our appeal, providing a POPLA code (Appendix 4). In this rejection, they once again falsely claimed the ability to hold us liable as the registered keeper under PoFA. This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breaches #1 and #2 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.
Breach #4: Response to complaint
Due to Smart Parking’s unacceptable conduct, we submitted a formal complaint to them on [DATE] (Appendix 5). On 27th March 2025, we received a response to our formal complaint (Appendix 6). Astonishingly, Smart Parking repeated for a 4th time their false claim that they can use PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable.
This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breaches #1 and #2 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.
Breach #5: Failure to respond to complaint within the prescribed timescales
Our formal complaint was sent to Smart Parking on 7th March 2025. 11.3 of the PPSSCoP requires operators to acknowledge all complaints within 14 days. Despite this, we did not hear back for far longer than this, only receiving a response on 27th March 2025, 20 days after our complaint. This is a direct breach of section 11.3 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance.
Summary:
As outlined above, in their handling our case, including the issuing of a PCN, their responses to our appeal and complaint, Smart Parking have made at least 5 separate breaches of the PPSSCoP. They have committed at least 5 breaches that would on their own each warrant a Level 1 non-conformance sanction, according to Annex H of the PPSSCoP.
When taken in combination, it is our position that these breaches are far more serious. They cannot be dismissed as mere human error, or good faith mistakes. Their refusal to correctly represent the law as outlined in PoFA can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the law, and therefore the authority under which they are operating. Taken in combination, we contend this constitutes dishonesty, and a deliberate misrepresentation of authority. We also contend this meets the threshold for higher culpability as per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, as their conduct represents intentional action, misleading tactics, and continued breaches after notification of the same.
According to Annex H of the PPSSCoP, we believe their continued conduct would constitute a Level 4 example of non-conformance, for which the starting point would be a suspension of membership.
Such misconduct is unbecoming of an accredited operator, and by association risks harming the reputation of the British Parking Association. We trust that you will therefore take this complaint with the seriousness it deserves, and sanction Smart Parking accordingly.
Just more evidence of the utter incompetent and ignorant people employed by this company.
This is how I would respond to the email you received this morning:
Subject: PCN Ref [INSERT REF] – Your Abysmal Understanding of PoFA is an Embarrassment
Dear Smart Parking (though there’s nothing remotely "smart" about your operation),
Your latest response is a shining example of the breathtaking idiocy that seems to run rampant within your organisation. One can only assume your so-called 'appeals team' was recruited directly from a skip outside a failed sixth form college.
You claim, with all the misplaced confidence of a pub quiz cheat, that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was “...issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012.” Do you even possess a copy of the Protection of Freedoms Act, or do your staff just rely on hearsay and hope?
Let’s break it down for the hard of thinking:
• The alleged contravention occurred on Thursday, 6th February 2025.
• You obtained Keeper details on Monday, 17th February 2025.
• The NtK was issued on Wednesday, 19th February 2025.
• Therefore, under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the notice is presumed delivered two working days later, i.e. Friday, 21st February 2025.
This is outside the 14-day 'relevant period' allowed under Paragraph 9(4)(b) of the Act. The law requires the NtK to be delivered (given), not farted out of your printer. “Issued” means nothing in legal terms. You missed the deadline. End of. No Keeper liability. No PoFA. No case.
The fact that one of your babbling keyboard-mashers thought this was compliant just confirms what most people already know: your entire outfit is staffed by weapons-grade dullards with a tenuous grip on the English language and an even looser understanding of the law.
Let me make it idiot-proof:
• You cannot rely on PoFA.
• You do not have Keeper liability.
• You are barking up the wrong tree.
Now do what you should have done in the first place: cancel this disgraceful attempt at extortion, crawl back into your regulatory sinkhole, and try—just try—not to humiliate yourselves further.
Yours, with barely concealed contempt,
[Your Name]
Below is an initial POPLA draft.
Separately, you should complain both to the DVLA and the BPA about their quite deliberate misrepresentation of PoFA. Although they have not responded to your complaint, they are past the deadline to do so, so you should escalate them to the relevant bodies. We can help with these complaints.
POPLA Appeal
[COMPANY NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)
-Vs-
Smart Parking (Operator)
Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]
Case Overview:
We, [COMPANY NAME], the registered keeper (“we”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from Smart Parking (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. We appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected our appeal. It is our position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle we have no liability for the parking charge, and that our appeal should therefore be upheld. Our appeal is on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from us, the registered keeper of the vehicle. As a body corporate, we are clearly not the driver. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from us as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Smart Parking have failed to do so.
They have failed to deliver the notice to keeper within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as specified by 9(5) of the Act.
Date of Parking: 06/02/2025
Date of PCN issue: 19/02/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 21/02/2025
Elapsed time period: 15 days
As Smart Parking are unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold us liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, we cannot be held liable for the charge, and our appeal should be upheld.
2. Breach of the PPSSCoP - Misrepresentation
The parking charge notice issued by Smart Parking claimed that they would be able to hold us liable as the registered keeper, under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, despite the fact they were aware (or ought to have been aware) that they had not complied with the relevant conditions to do so. Following our appeal pointing this out, Smart Parking doubled down on their stance, claiming that the charge was 'issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012', despite the fact that PoFA requires the notice to be given (that is, delivered) within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.
This repeated misrepresentation is in direct contravention of section 8.1.1 (d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which states:
8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:
a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none
exists;
b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge
notice;
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper we have no liability for this charge, and we request that our appeal is upheld.
You are not dealing with a company that has any customer service ethos.
Send the following to Smart:
Subject: Formal Reminder – Appeal Decision Outstanding (PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number])
Dear Smart Parking Ltd,
I write in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice and my appeal submitted on 25th February 2025. I note that your correspondence at the time indicated:
"We will endeavour to respond to your appeal within 28 days."
Today marks the 28th day since submission, and I have not received any substantive response to the appeal. The only correspondence received was a request for driver details dated 6th March 2025, to which a formal complaint was submitted separately. That complaint also remains unanswered, despite a further chaser email being sent on 24th March 2025.
For clarity, this reminder concerns your failure to issue a decision on the appeal itself. You are required to respond accordingly, irrespective of any ongoing complaint.
Unless and until you do so, the matter remains unresolved and I require written confirmation that the charge is on hold. If you proceed without addressing my appeal, I will treat that as a breach of both the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the BPA’s requirements for fair and transparent operator conduct. I also reserve the right to escalate this failure to the BPA and DVLA.
Should this matter proceed to POPLA, please be advised that I will require you to produce a fully unredacted, contemporaneous contract or chain of authority flowing from the landowner, showing you have the right to issue PCNs in your own name at this specific site. I trust you are already aware of your evidential burden in this regard.
I expect a full response to this appeal without further delay.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Vehicle Registration Number]
A suggested wording for your complaint is below. It should be sent to complaints@smartparking.com (complaints@smartparking.com). I would attach to this a copy of the correspondence you have shared with us today.
They will probably fob you off in their response, but the goal here is to ultimately escalate the complaint to the British Parking Association and the DVLA.
Subject: Formal Complaint, PCN #[REFERENCE]
Dear Sirs,
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an appeal against a parking charge (one has been submitted separately) but is instead a formal complaint regarding your handling of my case.
I am writing to make a formal complaint about your correspondence in respect of PCN #[REFERENCE], which amounts to a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) and, by virtue of this, your KADOE contract with the DVLA.
Following receipt of your PCN, I appealed on behalf of the company as the registered keeper, pointing out that due to your failure to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), you are unable to recover the charge from us as the keeper. You responded with a letter dated [DATE], which is attached, falsely claiming that the notice was issued under PoFA. In the letter you claim:
"the PC was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012"
As you will know, paragraph 9(4) of PoFA is clear that the notice must be given (that is, delivered), within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.
By falsely claiming otherwise, you are in breach of the PPSSCoP and the KADOE contract for the following reasons:
1. Breach of the PPSSCoP
Section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP states:
8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
In the appeal, I explained that Smart Parking had failed to serve a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, having given the notice outside of the relevant period of 14 days. You then responded on [DATE] with the attached letter, claiming the ability to recover the charges from us under PoFA. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, and a breach of 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP.
As per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, this constitutes at least a Level 1 sanction for non-conformance.
2. Breach of the KADOE Contract
Clause C1.1 of your KADOE Contract with DVLA states:
The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.
By knowingly and falsely claiming compliance with PoFA, you have failed to comply with the terms of your KADOE contract, bringing into question your suitability to have access to sensitive registered keeper data.
As a result of these serious failings you should:
- Confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken
- Explain why your correspondence falsely claims the ability to recover charges under PoFA when you are, or ought to be, fully aware this is not true
- Issue a formal apology
I expect a response to my complaint within 14 days. Following your response, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the British Parking Association, and the DVLA.
Yours etc...
[/quote]
They have also made serious breaches of the PPSCoP and therefore warrant a formal complaint to themselves in order to explain why and a formal complaint to the DVLA as they have breached the KADOE contract and this requires investigation.
• The main breaches are, but not limited to are Quoting PoFA when they cannot hold the Keeper liable.
• Misstating the deadlines for appealing or paying by quoting 28 days from issue rather than from receipt.
Although they claim to be relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to hold the company liable as the keeper, they have issued the notice too late to be able to do so!
The company as the RK can therefore appealing with the below:
Dear Sirs,
We have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. We note from your correspondence that you claim to be able to hold us liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"), but this is not true. You have failed to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as required by paragraph 9(4) of the Act.
Date of parking: 06/02/25
Date of issue: 19/02/25
Date of presumed service under 9(6) of the Act: 21/02/25
Days elapsed: 15 days
As a body corporate, we cannot have been the driver, and are appealing as the registered keeper. There is no obligation for us to name the driver and we will not be doing so. We are therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.