3. Smart Parking Notice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Smart Parking Notice  (Read 1771 times)

0 Members and 1583 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #30 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #31 on: »
Yes I meant SAR 👍
Logged
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #32 on: »
In their evidence pack that you linked to, there is no evidence of the NtK tha they are relying on. However, if you did SAR them and you included a copy of the original NtK in your POPLA appeal, then it is not a problem.

Normally, the appellant does not include a copy of the original NtK because the operator will include one in their evidence pack. The haven't in this case and they are relying on the fact that they received the Keepers DVAL data as some kind of reference to show compliance with PoFA, when it is in fact irrelevant.

So, did you upload a copy of the original NtK in your POPLA appeal? If not, then POPLA have no evidence of the NtK. You cannot upload anything in your response to the operators evidence, only what I have given you to copy and paste as the text for their response webform.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #33 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #34 on: »
OK. So the text I provided needs editing to remove any reference to the fact that the operator has not evidenced the NtK.

Use this:

Quote
This comment responds to the operator’s evidence and reinforces the primary ground of appeal: that no keeper liability can apply because the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not given within the strict time limits of the "relevant period" required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The operator attempts to mislead the POPLA assessor by asserting that they received the DVLA data on 23rd April 2025 and then "promptly" issued the PCN. This is entirely irrelevant. The legal requirement under Paragraphs 9(4) and 9(6) of PoFA is that the NtK must be given to the keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention.

The date of the alleged contravention was 14th April 2025. The NtK was issued on 28th April 2025, as confirmed in both my appeal and the operator’s own evidence. 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.

That is 16 days after the parking event – two days too late. It falls outside the strict statutory deadline. There is no dispute that I, the appellant, have not been identified as the driver and am under no obligation to do so. Accordingly, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to me as the Keeper.

While the operator has now included a copy of the NtK, this changes nothing. The document confirms the issue date of 28th April 2025, thereby confirming their failure to comply with the statutory time limits. Its inclusion merely validates my case, not theirs.

Worse still, the operator tries to distract the assessor by focusing on the date they received the DVLA data (23rd April) – a date wholly irrelevant to the PoFA compliance test. This is not simply a misunderstanding; it appears to be a conscious attempt to mislead the assessor into thinking they complied with PoFA when they clearly did not.

By their own admission, the NtK was issued five days after they obtained my data. That delay is entirely their responsibility and demonstrates that they did not act with reasonable diligence to meet the statutory deadline. Their attempt to shift blame onto the DVLA reveals a lack of honesty and transparency.

To be clear:

– The NtK was issued on 28 April 2025
– It is deemed given on 30 April 2025
– That is 16 days after the alleged parking event on 14 April 2025
– That breaches PoFA 9(4) and 9(6)
– The operator has not identified the driver
– Therefore, keeper liability cannot apply

The operator’s failure to meet the statutory deadlines, their reliance on irrelevant dates, and their misleading assertions all lead to one inescapable conclusion: this appeal must be allowed.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #35 on: »
FYI just as feedback on this, POPLA came back and my appeal of the PCN was successful.

Thanks to all that helped.
Logged
Winner Winner x 1 View List
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #36 on: »
Please show us the full response from POPLA. Just make it a bit easier on us by introducing a few paragraph breaks so the bock of text isn't unbearable. You can leave the assessors name visible.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Smart Parking Notice
« Reply #37 on: »

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.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »
  3. Smart Parking Notice