Just shows you the intellectual malnourishment within (not so) Smart Parking that they think that "issuing" the NtK within 14 days means that it is PoFA complaint with paragraph 9(4)(b). I don't think you can display more ignorance from a firm that has had over 13 years to get to grips with PoFA.
Not much more you can do for now except to submit an IAS appeal. If they don't concede, then it costs them, not you. Worth it, even if just for the Schadenfreude.
Appeal to the IAS with the following:
IAS Appeal – Smart Parking Ltd – Keeper Liability Invalid Due to PoFA Non-Compliance
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and appeal this Parking Charge Notice in full. I deny any liability whatsoever. The charge is not enforceable against me under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) because Smart Parking failed to comply with the mandatory statutory deadline for delivering a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
PoFA Breach – Keeper Liability Not Available
The facts are these:
• Date of alleged contravention: Sunday 18 May 2025
• Date printed on NtK: Monday 2 June 2025
• Date “given” (i.e. presumed delivery): Wednesday 4 June 2025
PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(4)(b) requires that where no notice was affixed to the vehicle, the NtK must be given by-:
“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.”
Paragraph 9(5) defines that “relevant period” as:
“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.”
This means Smart Parking had until Monday 2 June 2025 to ensure the NtK was delivered to me, the Keeper. That is the final day of the 14-day statutory window (relevant period) beginning on Monday 19 May. Even a primary school child is capable of doing the maths for this.
However, while Smart Parking may have dated (issued) the notice on 2 June, they did not ensure delivery by that date. The NtK was received around 4 June, outside the statutory period. “Issued” is not the same as “given”. Parliament chose the word “given” for a reason: what matters is when it is received, not when it was printed or posted.
Accordingly, Smart Parking has failed to establish keeper liability. That legal avenue is now closed.
Smart Parking’s Response – Factually and Legally Incorrect
In their rejection letter, Smart Parking claims:
“...the Parking Charge (PC) was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012.”
This misstates the law. PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not mere dispatch. That Smart Parking either does not understand this or believes it can ignore it is a serious concern—particularly as they falsely imply in correspondence that keeper liability applies when it does not. Considering they have had over 13 years to get to grips with PoFA, this seriously challenges the name "Smart".
Their additional comment that I “have been invited to provide the driver’s full name” is a red herring. There is no legal obligation to name the driver, and the burden of proof lies squarely with the operator. Once keeper liability under PoFA fails, they must pursue the driver directly—if they can.
If the IAS Upholds This Charge, It Endorses a Breach of Statute
This charge is legally dead on arrival. To uphold it in the face of clear statutory breach would suggest that the IAS is not a tribunal grounded in law, but a mechanism designed to rubber-stamp unlawful practices.
The IAS repeatedly claims its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet no register is published, decisions are anonymised and unsigned, and no transparency exists. If this appeal is reviewed by anyone genuinely trained in the law, they will know that:
• Delivery of an NtK outside the 14-day window = no keeper liability
• “Prompt issue” is irrelevant and legally meaningless under PoFA
• Continued pursuit after statutory failure may breach consumer protection law
This should not be controversial. It is plain statutory interpretation. If the IAS assessor ignores this and upholds the charge, it will confirm widespread public suspicion that this process is neither independent nor legally competent.
Without Prejudice to the Above – Further Grounds for Appeal
1. Landowner Authority: Smart Parking must provide unredacted proof of a current, signed contract with the landowner specifically authorising it to issue PCNs and pursue legal action. This must comply with Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). No redacted, out-of-date, or unsigned documents will suffice.
2. Signage and Contract Formation: Strict proof is required of signage that complies with the PPSCoP and ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. This includes dated photographs in situ, and a full site plan showing placement, font sizes, and visibility.
3. Enforcement System Reliability: If ANPR was used, Smart Parking must prove that the system was synchronised, maintained, and properly logging entry and exit, including consideration and grace periods defined under the Code.
Conclusion
The NtK was not delivered within 14 days. Keeper liability is therefore not available. PoFA is not optional, and timelines are not mere “guidelines.” The charge must be cancelled.
Should this appeal be rejected, I will be filing complaints with the DVLA, the IPC, and my MP, citing this case as evidence of systemic abuse and regulatory failure. The IAS will also be referenced as complicit if it fails to apply the law correctly.