Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: c4733 on February 02, 2026, 07:15:05 pm
-
This is the operator's response to my appeal through IAS.
"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 13/04/2026 11:59:51.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 21/01/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 10/01/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
On 10/01/2026 at 10:25 vehicle **** *** arrived at Cardiff International Sports Campus - Cardiff (See image in pack). The vehicle left at 11:56 (see image in pack).
The vehicle was on site for 91minutes and 1 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 (POFA) on 21/01/2026 (see copy in pack)
The operator received an appeal from the keeper of the vehicle on 19/02/2026 (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 (see attached log). Therefore, the operator considered the charge valid and declined the appeal on 14/03/2026 (see copy in pack)".
Would anyone like to shed some light on this response and what to do from here?
-
Info for other users in what to expect when registering with IAS on the website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have told us that you are being held liable for the parking charge.
What happens when I have submitted my Appeal?
Once you have submitted your appeal, the case will be sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account.
The Parking Operator is provided 5 working days to upload sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.
Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log in and see it. You will then have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any photographs or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your appeal you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. WARNING, the Adjudicator will assess ONLY the evidence provided by the operator and NOTHING MORE. You will not have the opportunity of making representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
You will then be notified by email when you are able to proceed further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, what happens if you fill out all the relevant info on IAS and do not submit an appeal and wait for the operators reposnse? Just curious.
-
Started the appeal process with IAS by registering. I have until 15/04/2026 23:59 to submit my appeal. :o Any thoughts on the above draft guys?
-
Found this information on here from @b789 to @davidmac used as a Letter of Claim response of which I take no credit for. I have made amendments to it as a draft and hope to use it as an appeal to IAS.
What's your thoughts?
This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out below.
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions, yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking. Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect of invoking keeper liability.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver, the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation, reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking. The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.
4. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator asserts that signs are clearly displayed throughout the site but has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance signage, no site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity to any alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed where terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer was made, let alone accepted.
5. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority. They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
6. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not. Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.
7. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof. They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges. They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the operator is fatal.
In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
-
If you show us a draft before submitting anything we can take a look.
-
Late update.
Found this correspondance under the name of: donotreply@citysmarti.co.uk lurking in my Spam box last week and have not been able to act upon it until now. I have 28 days from the date of the letter (14.03.26) to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which I believe only gives me two days remaining! :-[
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking Ltd
14/03/2026
www.smartparking.com
Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Birmingham, B377HE
Dear
Parking Charge:
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period, we have extended the discount period until 31/03/2026.
Having noted your comments, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.
We can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued due to insufficient paid time. Our payment system shows that no valid payment was made for your vehicle registration **** *** for the 91 minutes that your vehicle remained on site.
As clearly stated on the car park signage, all motorists are required to purchase a valid ticket by entering the full and correct vehicle registration mark into the payment machine or by using an approved alternative payment method. A payment must be made to cover the full duration of the stay from point of entry to point of exit. As no payment was recorded for your vehicle, the Terms and Conditions have been breached.
As you were informed in our initial correspondence, we can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The parking contravention occurred on 10.01.2026, and this notice was issued on 21.01.2026, within the 14-day period required. You were also invited to provided us with the driver’s full name and current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time of the parking event.
If you wish to provide driver details, please send them via email to: COD@smartparking.com
Failure to provide these details, will result in Smart Parking using the provisions under POFA, 2012 to pursue you, the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance of the PC.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal further with IAS – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, (IAS) using the instructions below. Please note, should you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PC will be due.
If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to visit the website, https://www.theias.org/ where further details of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to IAS.
Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:
• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37 7HE.
• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card, please visit
www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge number to hand.
• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment service on 0330 057 6230.
Please have your Parking Charge number to hand. Please note that calls to this number cost
up to 7p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.
Yours sincerely,
Smart Parking Limited
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to to appeal today and look for information on here to help me fight this and in the meantime welcome all postive and helpful advice.
-
Doubled checked my emails and have received nothing. Will chase and keep everyone updated.
-
I will take this as Smart Parking has discontinued their pursuit in the matter
I'm not sure I would. Check your spam folder and chase them. They may have changed, of course, but the last time I had an appeal upheld by Smart Parking they emailed me to tell me.
-
Hi all,
So I appealed going the NTO issued by Smart Parking going back 5 weeks ago and have heard nothing since. I will take this as Smart Parking has discontinued their pursuit in the matter, but if I do hear anything in the future I will post it here.
Thank you everyone that offered advice hear in the matter.
-
Thank you @DWMB2 for the sound advice, I shall indeed be appealing today and post here the outcome. Though I do hope i'm still within time as I believe the letter was dated 20th or 21st of Janruary?
-
They can still take you to court, but the point is that by engaging and disputing the debt you've done a few things:
- Shown to Smart that you're potentially not an easy target
- Set out your grounds of dispute, which will eventually form the basis of your defence
- Shown to the court that you have behaved reasonably and taken steps to resolve the issue
- If one of your appeals is accepted, avoided court (and several months of paperwork) altogether
Court should be seen as a last resort, and judges expect litigants to have behaved reasonably - this includes taking steps to dispute the matter with the claimant before it reaches the court. If you're unfortunate enough for this to go all the way to a court hearing, then if you've disputed the matter at every stage, you potentially look a lot better to the judge than someone who has buried their head in the sand and ignored everything, forcing the matter to end up in court.
-
But surely if my appeal gets rejected by every party they can still take me to court, which is what DCB Legal did to me last year when they sent me a letter for a similar thing but different place?
-
It would seem that both outcomes are the same?
By appealing now you demonstrate that you have attempted to avoid this going to court, even if your attempt is unsuccessful. If you ignore, you can’t.
Hence why normal advice here is to follow the process rather than ignore.
-
It would seem that both outcomes are the same?
-
If you ignore Smart you will get letters from debt collectors followed by a legal Letter of Claim.
If you appeal within their deadlines, they will reject your appeal and allow you to appeal to the IAS who will also reject your appeal, followed by debt collectors and a Letter of Claim.
In either case you will eventually need to file an appeal to a court claim, so if you appeal now you have the basis for a subsequent appeal and set out your position.
-
Here are all the links again for the signage. I have checked and they are working and viewable. The PCN i will upload later today.
https://ibb.co/zVVQ3byp
https://ibb.co/VpvvDDgW
https://ibb.co/FbwFQ8zW
https://ibb.co/Q3vpZBGf
https://ibb.co/LX7LpBQg
https://ibb.co/XZQqkGgB
https://ibb.co/n8QV427L
https://ibb.co/ks5jTftt
https://ibb.co/BKHQXV78
There is NO parking signage from leaving the main road (Leckwith Road) into the Sports Campus area. The first signage is located in the parking bays area. After that, there is one or two signs dotted around.
I’m thinking of ignoring Smart Parking letter and wait and see what action they follow up with??
-
The PCN links seem to have expired so I can't check them for PoFA compliance. Can you please re-upload?
I'd be minded to appeal (as the keeper) on the grounds that the signage was not sufficiently prominent to create an enforceable contract.
-
This was a response on the forum from @b789 to marxman,
"I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."
Is it worth me using this paragraph to write to Smart Parking?
-
Hi alls,
Any advice with the above?
-
Hi all,
Here are the photos from the area of where I have received the notice from Smart Parking. The sign closest to where I parked behind the building is in welsh, which is not at all help as I don’t speak the language.
Presumably there are other signs dotted around the area referring to the parking bays, but nothing that suggests or indicates the road behind the Cardiff Sports Campus is paid parking?
There are no parking signs when leaving the main road and entering into the Sports area.
Any thoughts?
https://ibb.co/VpQ9fggp
https://ibb.co/wZdGCr6J
https://ibb.co/rKm3Hcwy
https://ibb.co/mVvMMFzB
-
We cannot advise UNTIL we see the relevant signage.
-
Thanks @InterCity125 I will take some photo's this week and post them here. What should I do in the meantime with regards to the letter good folks?
-
GSV imagery is from 2019 so it's not possible for us to examine current signage.
What you may need to do is to take some pictures from the access road which you say you parked on.
Also the signage at the entrance to the facility.
-
Please see above conversations for links of letter by Smart Parking.
Smart Parking letter states arrival time 10:25am, departure time 11:56am. It shows only an image of the front of the vehicle and the behind.
What would be the argument of naming the driver and holding the keeper accountable and not parked in one of their designatated carpark areas?
-
Your notice only gives ANPR entry and exit times, which are not the same as a parking period. ANPR records movement past a camera, not when the vehicle was actually parked.
I think this would be a very difficult argument to run in many cases. The legislation requires the parking period to be 'specified' - it would in my view be a very prescriptive interpretation that found that an operator must define the precise time the vehicle became parked and ceased to be parked. If their evidence can show that, on the balance of probabilities, a vehicle was parked for at least the consideration period, and define the period during which this happened, I imagine many judges would take the view that they had complied.
In this case, the vehicle was on site for 31 minutes. On that basis, you would potentially need to successfully argue that, on the balance of probabilities, the vehicle spent 26 minutes driving around.
I'm not saying the argument is impossible, but it's not a case of just saying "If they're using ANPR they haven't specified a period of parking and therefore the notice isn't PoFA compliant".
-
To all,
I have recently recieved a letter from SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE - with an amount outstanding of £100 (See attachment) and wish to get some advice from the wonderful community of people here.
What's "recently"?
What's the date on the invoice?
Plus there appear to be multiple POFA defects in the wording, the obvious one being that POFA 9(2)(a) requires a period of parking.
Your notice only gives ANPR entry and exit times, which are not the same as a parking period. ANPR records movement past a camera, not when the vehicle was actually parked.
This alone is enough to make the notice non‑compliant.
-
Hi all,
I know everyone is pretty busy but does anyone have any advice of how to tackle the above?
-
Thank you @Fluffykins for adding them, not sure exactly why the links became corrupted. Here is the link for the one that was missing.
https://ibb.co/ZpBrhfRS
-
I think the active bit of those links have got ballsed up. Copying the text you can SEE, rather than the click link behind, gives these:
https://ibb.co/0Rx03czJ
https://ibb.co/GQ526dqJ
https://ibb.co/szSFxKC
-
That page doesn't exist
The requested page was not found.
-
To all,
I have recently recieved a letter from SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE - with an amount outstanding of £100 (See attachment) and wish to get some advice from the wonderful community of people here.
Interestingly, the letter only shows a picture of the vehicle front and back and no evidence of parking?
"PCN Information
The Parking Charge has been issued to your vehicle. . . . , because between the period of 10:25 (10/01.2026) to 11:56 (10/01/2026) it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at Cardiff International Sports Campus, Cardiff CF11 8AZ, paid for insufficient time (ANPR). This is supported by camera images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. The signage, which is clearly displayed at the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Smart Parking Ltd (as the Creditor).
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this notice in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, you the vehicle's keeper are now invited to either:
1. Pay the charge, or
2. If you were not the driver at the time of the event, please provide us with the driver's full name and current address using the contact details below and pass this Parking Charge to them. (Once this information is receieved, we will pursue the driver).
This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complaince with the applicable conditions under this Act. If within 28 days, beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the date of issue) the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the notice from you, the keeper."
*I like the carefully worded: you the vehicle's keeper are now invited to either ;D ;D ;D
To give context.
I use this sports area often to take my small child to grassroots football there. Turning off the main road you drive along another road of the Sports area where there is 3 designated area's of paid parking, which guranteeded are full every Saturaday morning. What isn't designated parking and does not have any signage or yellow lines is a road directly behind Cardiff International Sports Campus where people do park freely, and on occassions I do myself.
I have hightlighted the photo on the attached as follows.
Red - paid designated parking
Green - behind the building.
I welcome all to comment, advise and point me in the right direction of how to tackle this matter.
Best regards,
https://ibb.co/0Rx03czJ
https://ibb.co/GQ526dqJ
https://ibb.co/szSFxKC (https://ibb.co/0Rx03czJ
https://ibb.co/GQ526dqJ
https://ibb.co/szSFxKC)