Free Traffic Legal Advice

As expected, Smart Parking denied my appeal. In summary, this is what they have written:

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 09/07/2025.


As you were informed in our initial correspondence, we can confirm that the above parking charge was
issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). The parking contravention occurred
on 18.05.2025, the registered keeper details were received on 29.05.2025, after which the Parking
Charge (PC) was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012. You were also invited
to provided us with the driver’s full name.


If you wish to provided driver details please send them via email to: [redacted]


In the event that you fail to provide these details, we will use the provisions under POFA, 2012, and
continue to pursue you the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance.


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.


We note the comments made within your appeal; however, we cannot rescind the PC on this basis. We
wish to confirm that the contravention of insufficient paid time occurred as our system confirms that
whilst 120 were purchased were purchased against Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) [redacted], your
vehicle remained on site for 131 minutes. The signage onsite clearly informs motorist that they are
required to purchase a valid ticket for the full duration of their vehicles stay onsite. Furthermore,
additional time can be purchased at any point during throughout your vehicles stay, before exiting the
car park, allowing for any unexpected overstays.

The rest of the letter is about how to appeal to the IAS or how to pay. I find it disappointing that only on appeal have they now they have disclosed the times paid for vs the time on site.

I welcome other's thoughts on proceeding.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I will read though the case you've referred to later today.

Interestingly enough, the Keeper is not at all a company and I haven't a clue why they would have addressed the NTK as such.

Would this change your wording given the error?

Thanks in advance for your advice and assistance.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle named in the PCN.

The driver of the vehicle paid for 2 hours of parking which can be substantiated by a receipt from RingGo. The PCN alleged insufficient payment which was measured by ANPR entry/exit and not observation of parking time. The RingGo payment was for the period 10:50-12:50 whereas ANPR observes the vehicle entering and leaving between 10:48-12:59. The car park is a busy and small and mostly one way path alongside the Margate coast which requires careful and safe driving while obtaining and leaving the bays.

I do not have any photos of the signs at the car park and I do not live nearby so they are not easily obtained.

The NTK refers to POFA 2012 and appears to be issued slightly out of time though please double check me.

PCN Images: https://imgur.com/a/6CaUTZu


It feels preferable to contest over grace periods than let it go to court over an invalid NTK. Your thoughts on this are most welcome.