-
Smart Parking – Insufficient Payment – Sports Club, Stratford Upon Avon
Posted by mavihatari on 28 May, 2025 18:11 -
Hi everyone.
I have received notification from my car leasing company that they have been notified of a parking offence by Smart Parking. I have been given a reference number to enter into Smart Parking's website, which shows that I paid for an insufficient time. I entered into the car park at 2.10pm and I left the car park at 4.57pm on 20th April 2025. I paid by Ringo but my payment was for 2 hours from 3.14pm to 5.14pm. The reason for paying an hour later than I parked was due to lack of signal at the time, and by the time I finally got signal, I had lost the code, so had to walk back to the car park, take a photo of the code, then walk back to the signal location and enter it all in, and at the same time I had a child who was being sick due to having travel sickness and was having to make him comfortable etc.
So essentially I paid for 2 hours but I was in the car park for 2.5 hours in total, and I paid an hour after I parked because of phone signal issues.
The date of the offence was 20th April, but the email I had from my leasing company was dated 24th May. This is a 34 days, assuming my leasing company received the letter on the day they wrote to me. The leasing company has written back to Smart Parking informing them of my details, and thereby transferring the liability over to me. I have not yet received any letters from Smart Parking, although It is still early and Im expecting the letter to come through imminently.
Ultimately, I find it so predatory that for over-parking by 37 minutes has landed me a £100 fine.
In my circumstances, am I able to appeal to Smart Parking's conscience, and show that I did make efforts to pay but I just got caught out due to the circumstances I mentioned above? Or is it better for me to appeal on another angle, e.g the time period between the date of the offence and the information to my car leasing company being 34 days?
Many thanks in advance for any assistance or advice. -
-
Until you receive a notice in your name there is nothing for you to appeal. When you do, come back and we can advise on an appeal.
-
-
You don’t appeal to Smart Parking’s conscience, they haven’t got one, they only want your money, but when you receive the Notice to Hirer come back here with all the details, because it’s going to fail to be able to make you liable just as long as you refer to yourself as Hirer and never identify the driver.
I suggest you read the READ THIS FIRST linked from @DWMB2’s post immediately above in the meantime.
34 days may also be relevant, but only if your leasing company is the registered keeper of the car, it’s quite possible that a third company is. -
-
I suggest you edit your post to remove any reference that the Hirer was also the driver. (not so) Smart Parking have no idea who the driver is unless you blab it to them inadvertently our otherwise. As the Hirer, you only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
If you're wondering why, I'll accept a bet of £100 that (not so) Smart will not issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) that complies with PoFA 2012, which means they can't transfer liability fro the unknown driver to the known Hirer. You have what is termed a "golden ticket" which you will waste if you blab the drivers identity.
You can also tell your eejit lease company that they have not been notified about any "offence" by (not so) Smart Parking, who are simply an unregulated private parking company and the PCN they received as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
So, as above, wait until you receive pistol Notice to Hirer (NtH) in you name and then tell us if it included the following copies of these documents with it:• a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
• a copy of the hire agreement;
• a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
• a copy of the original NtK.
I am so confident that they will not include all those documents with the NtH that when you receive it, you can appeal with the following to (not so) Smart Parking with the following, ONLY as the Hirer:QuoteI am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) 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. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN. -
-
Hi everyone. Thank you for your replies.
As the Hirer, the Notice to Hire has now been received. The date of the offence was 20th April 2025 and the date when the letter arrived was today, the 16th of June 2025. The letter was dated 9th June 2025. So it would have been 50 days (based on the date of the letter) or 57 days (based on the date the letter was received).
Does this have any relevance?
or
Does the advice posted by b789 still apply?
Many thanks!
-
-
No, the PCN needs to be issued to the registered keeper to arrive within 14 days, the registered keeper has to inform the parking company of the hirer within 28 days, then the parking company has 21 days to send the Notice to Hirer to the hirer.
I suggest you don’t get into an argument about dates unless you know the dates each of these separate things occurred.
Appeal the NtH as b789 says, except for the POPLA bit. Assuming the additional documents you were asked about weren’t included, you didn’t answer that question. But they weren’t because they never are.
Smart will reject the appeal, it’ll be amusing to see on what basis, but it doesn’t matter. POPLA kept on upholding appeals against them, because they were wrong, but they’ve now jumped ship to the IAS which rejects valid appeals consistently. Don’t worry, you’ll still pay £0, it just takes more paperwork. -
-
As above. (not so) Smart Parking switched allegiance from the BPA to the IPC since the previous advice was given. So, POPLA is no longer applicable. Just change "POPLA" to "IAS".
It is doubtful that the IAS will uphold any appeal but you can't try until the initial appeal has been rejected. When it is, you can use the following for the IAS appeal:QuoteI am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
Don't try to overthink this. Just use the wording as advised in the initial appeal, changing POPLA to IAS. The same applies to the IAS appeal after you receive the initial appeal rejection.
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 Hirer complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) paragraphs 13 and 14, if the operator is attempting to rely on Hirer liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders Hirer liability unenforceable. For example, the Creditor has failed to include with the Notice, copies of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) as required in paragraph 14(2)(a) or a copy of the Notice to Keeper.
5. 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. -
-
Thanks for the advice. The plan now would be to follow b789's advice and file the initial appeal with Smart Parking. (recognising the change of wording from POPLA to IAS)
Both b789 and jfollows have mentioned / implied that IAS is likely to reject the appeal (vs POPLA which would have upheld the appeal). My question therefore is, is this now an uphill battle now following Smart Parking's change to IAS? Or is the confidence in the appeals process with help from this forum still high, and so the juice is worth the squeeze.
Thank you -
-
It just means that the process will be much more protracted. It will go all the way to a court claim being issued. However, it is very easily defended and we will provide the defence template.
The claim will never get as far as a hearing as long as the advice we provide is followed. (not so) Smart's choice of bulk litigator, DCB Legal, will eventually discontinue the claim, if it is not struck out first. In the less tan 1% chance it would ever get as far as a hearing, they would receive a spanking in court. -
-
Just wanted to say a big thank you to b789 and jfollows. I submitted my appeal exactly as advised, and today I received a note saying the PCN has been cancelled! Great news, and thank you once again!
-
-
Good.
Just to be clear, was it Smart who accepted your appeal? -
-
Yes it was Smart's appeal team
-
Winner x 1
View List