• Presumed delivery: 05/08/2025 (second working day after issue) → this is day 14 after the parking event, so still in time for PoFA.
On wording, they’ve clearly attempted to tick the PoFA boxes — they’ve:
• Identified the period of parking (between 13:53 and 15:03).
• Stated the relevant land (Parsons Street – Banbury – OX16 5NA).
• Named themselves as the creditor.
• Given the “invitation” to pay or name the driver under 9(2)(e)(i).
• Included the keeper liability warning under 9(2)(f) with the 28-day period.
That means there’s no quick win on PoFA non-compliance here — unless the “period of parking” is actually just the ANPR timestamps, in which case you can still argue that this records only entry/exit times, not actual parking duration, and thus fails to specify a true period of parking.
If you want to fight it, the realistic angles would be:
• Signage & contractual terms — whether they were prominent and clear, and whether the “paid for insufficient time” term was clear enough to form part of the contract.
• Grace period under the PPSCoP — as the overstay is covered by the 10-minute grace period.
They’re chasing you for exactly the amount of time that the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) says should be free as a mandatory grace period at the end of a paid session. Section 5.2.3 of the 17 February 2025 PPSCoP states:
“A minimum grace period of 10 minutes must be added to the end of a permitted or paid-for parking period before a parking charge can be issued.”
If you purchased 2 hours and their own ANPR shows you left 10 minutes after expiry, that’s within the grace period — so no contravention has occurred under the Code.
Since (not so) Smart Parking is now IPC, you won’t have POPLA — instead, you’d have the IAS, which (as you may know) is not regarded as an independent or fair adjudication forum. The PPSCoP is still technically the joint BPA/IPC Code, so Smart are bound by it, but IPC members have a long history of ignoring it when it suits them, and the IAS is unlikely to uphold an appeal solely on that basis.
That means your best strategy is:
• Use the 10-minute grace period point in your initial appeal anyway — it’s a clear breach of the PPSCoP.
• Keep it short and do not identify the driver. PoFA is in play, so they can pursue the Keeper, but you still don’t want to confirm who was driving.
• If rejected (likely), you appeal to the IAS only because you want to build a “paper trail” for a future court defence.
• If this ever went to court, the 10-minute grace period would be a very strong fairness/unreasonableness argument — especially since they’ve ticketed you for exactly the free leeway allowed under their own trade association’s Code.
Use the following as your initial appeal:
Subject: Parking Charge Notice [PCN reference] – Vehicle Registration [VRM]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and refer to your Notice to Keeper dated 01/08/2025.
The allegation is “paid for insufficient time (ANPR)” for a stay from 13:53 to 15:03 on 22/07/2025. Two hours were paid for, with your own ANPR images showing only a 10-minute overstay (on site, not parked) after the expiry of the paid period.
This charge is wholly invalid. Section 5.2.3 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, v1.1, 17 February 2025) — adopted by both the BPA and IPC — requires:
“A minimum grace period of 10 minutes must be added to the end of a permitted or paid-for parking period before a parking charge can be issued.”
Your own Notice confirms that the alleged overstay is exactly 10 minutes, which falls within this mandated grace period. Moreover, ANPR cameras only record a vehicle’s time on site, not the actual time parked. The arrival timestamp will inevitably include time spent finding a space, manoeuvring, and reading the terms on the signage before parking. Likewise, the departure timestamp will include the time taken to return to the vehicle, load belongings or passengers, and exit the site. Consequently, the actual time parked would have been less than the alleged “time on site” and therefore even further within the permitted paid-for period plus the grace period.
Additionally, the Notice to Keeper was received outside of the relevant period prescribed by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). While the issue date may be stated as 01/08/2025, that is merely a rebuttable presumption of the date of posting. I require strict proof that the Notice was actually posted and entered the postal system on the same date as the issue date.
This requirement is confirmed in PPSCoP section 8:
“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered 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. Therefore, parking operators 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).”
You must therefore either provide documentary proof of the actual posting date or cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
For the avoidance of doubt, no admissions are made regarding the identity of the driver, and you must not infer it.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper