The question I have now is, since I assume I'll still get letters from the debt collectors, should I continue to ignore them or tell them that the owner of the car park has cancelled the ticket?If the charge has been cancelled, you should hear no more from either Smart or their debt collecting lap dogs (except to confirm that the charge is cancelled, although they might not waste their time telling you that). If you do, let us know and we can advise you on how to deal with them.
Parking Ticket Cancellation Confirmation.
I have received confirmation from Luke, the store manager, that the parking ticket has now been cancelled.
Please feel free to contact us if you encounter any further issues regarding the parking ticket.
Regards
Your PCN or Registration Number has not been recognised. Please try again.
Please Note: If you have had your appeal rejected and you have been told to enter your appeal on this site but keep receiving this message; please contact the operator that issued the charge for assistance.
The IAS will not have the information to assist you at this stage.
Operator Contact Details can be found at www.theipc.info/aos-members.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
If the recipient of the notice appealed on day 13, he might struggle to run an argument that the claimant cannot prove the notice was delivered within 14 days.
If the presumption that a notice sent by post (PoFA itself doesn't specify first class post) can be rebutted, I would suggest it can be rebutted both ways (ie, if the sender can show that it was received sooner than that, by, for example, showing that the appellant appealed before the presumed delivery date and therefore must have received it sooner).
Nah, it's PoFA compliant as far as I can see. You can mess with them by appealing and then when they reject that, appeal to the IAS, which will also be rejected but costs them money unless they concede.
The way this will be won is after they issue a claim which is easily defended and has a very high probability of it being struck out or discontinued just before the trial fee of £27 has to be paid by them.
For now, just appeal as the Keeper with the following:QuoteI am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
Your Notice to Keeper was issued 10 days after the alleged contravention. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a notice must be given—that is, delivered—within 14 days of the event in order to hold the keeper liable.
Delivery is only presumed if the notice was posted by first-class mail at least two working days before the expiry of the relevant period. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (Note 2, Section 8.1.2(e)) explicitly states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting, not simply the date of generation or handover to a mail consolidator. This is critical, because most bulk mailing services—such as those used by Smart Parking—typically operate on economy 3–4 day delivery schedules, which fall outside the timescale necessary for presumed delivery under PoFA.
Accordingly, without affirmative evidence that the NtK was actually posted via first-class mail in time to ensure delivery within the 14-day period, you cannot rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no lawful inference may be drawn in this regard. I am also lodging a formal complaint with your client about your aggressive and misleading enforcement conduct.
I suggest that you cancel this charge now to avoid further time-wasting or the expense to you of an IAS appeal.
Nah, it's PoFA compliant as far as I can see.Likewise - Smart may finally be getting their house in order as far as PoFA compliance is concerned, one for us to keep an eye on.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
Your Notice to Keeper was issued 10 days after the alleged contravention. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a notice must be given—that is, delivered—within 14 days of the event in order to hold the keeper liable.
Delivery is only presumed if the notice was posted by first-class mail at least two working days before the expiry of the relevant period. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (Note 2, Section 8.1.2(e)) explicitly states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting, not simply the date of generation or handover to a mail consolidator. This is critical, because most bulk mailing services—such as those used by Smart Parking—typically operate on economy 3–4 day delivery schedules, which fall outside the timescale necessary for presumed delivery under PoFA.
Accordingly, without affirmative evidence that the NtK was actually posted via first-class mail in time to ensure delivery within the 14-day period, you cannot rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no lawful inference may be drawn in this regard. I am also lodging a formal complaint with your client about your aggressive and misleading enforcement conduct.
I suggest that you cancel this charge now to avoid further time-wasting or the expense to you of an IAS appeal.