Free Traffic Legal Advice

So, basically email them, but expect to pay in full? That is kind of what I figured, but thought I would ask

I have uploaded and linked the PCN here > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0mbnco2ijhvzrhbricyr0/Epson_27022026120411.pdf?rlkey=m734dbi61wi4t99v67es8n40a&st=eoup87f6&dl=0

It was in Bridlington. Thanks.

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to paid for insufficient time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below.
• No keeper liability. The PCN does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. (PoFA).
• They refer to section 8.1.1 (d) of the Single Code of Practice (The Code). The appellant has provided
1. A word document with their grounds of appeal which is summarised above. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds regarding the PCN not being PoFA compliant. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for paid for insufficient time. The appellant says that the PCN is not PoFA compliant. The appellant says that it was issued on 28 April 2025, that the deemed date is 30 April 2025 which is 16 days after the alleged parking event on 14 April 2025. I have reviewed the copy of the PCN provided by the operator. I note that it shows that the parking event took place on 14 April 2025 and that it was issued on 28 April 2025. Under PoFA 9(6), a notice sent by post is deemed “given” on the second working day after posting – in this case, 30th April 2025. Parking operators must follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. In this case, the parking operator has issued the PCN 2 days outside of the timeframe. Therefore, the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

They have put it in their response. I didn't upload it here as it was the original stuff I had already uploaded but was in a combined pdf so it would need anonymising to upload. Again, sorry, I didn't make that clear.

They uploaded two documents. The one I shared here and another one which included the original PCN / NtK.

Hope this all makes sense.

Sorry I don't know what you mean? I haven't removed anything. I could only see an option to upload one document so I uploaded the PDF appeal.

Smart have uploaded the original PCN so I have referenced that in my reply.

Thanks both. Reworded as below:

Smart Parking EW’s response fails to adequately rebut the grounds of my appeal. Much of their response is irrelevant, and those sections that are relevant misrepresent both the law and the circumstances of this case.

As shown in the operator documents, the copy of the PCN provides the relevant dates as follows:

Date of Contravention = 14/04/2025

Date Issued = 28/04/2025

In their responses (excerpts below), Smart Parking EW state when keeper details are received from the DVLA, which is irrelevant.
 
- Letter dated May 19th, included in the Operator evidence “the registered keeper details were received on 24.04.2025, after which the Parking Charge (PC) was promptly issued”
- POPLA appeal received on May 22nd. “the registered keeper details were received on 23/04/2025, after which the PC was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012”

Smart Parking EW are also incorrect to say that PoFA requires a notice to be issued within 14 days. As already outlined in my appeal, PoFA requires a notice to be delivered within 14 days. The date of presumed delivery, as per 9(6) of PoFA, is 2 working days after the date of issue. As clearly seen in Smart Parking EW's own evidence, the PCN was issued on 28/04/2025, and is therefore presumed delivered 2 working days later. This means it was delivered on 30/04/2025, 16 days after the incident, and therefore not within the 14 days required by PoFA.

What do you think to this response? Any comments welcome.

As shown in the operator documents, the copy of the PCN provides the relevant dates as: Date of Contravention of 14/04/2025 and Date Issued as 28/04/2025.

Adding on 2 days expected for delivery = 30/04/2025.

This is 16 days and outside of the 14 day window allowed.

Further to this, Smart Parking EW are deliberately providing other dates without highlighting the date on which the PC was sent. Detailed below:

- Letter dated May 19th, included in the Operator evidence “the registered keeper details were received on 24.04.2025, after which the Parking Charge (PC) was promptly issued”
- POPLA appeal received on May 22nd. “the registered keeper details were received on 23/04/2025, after which the PC was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012”

The PC arrived at the intended address on May 7th. Nine days after the alleged PC issue date.