Free Traffic Legal Advice

Initial Summary – Operator’s Complete Failure to Address My Appeal Points

Smart Parking has entirely failed to address the substantive points raised in my original appeal to POPLA, which were critical in challenging the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Instead of responding to these points, they have chosen to submit irrelevant, incorrect, and tampered evidence, which includes an astonishing GDPR breach. In their submission, Smart Parking seems to believe I went shopping with a 6-month-old son and spent the time breastfeeding. Allow me to clarify: I am male, and I do not breastfeed my 16-year-old daughter (who lives two hours away in another city). This level of incompetence would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly unprofessional and unlawful.

It is hard to imagine a more vexatious attempt to extort money from me than this submission, which fails to meet the basic standards required by the BPA Code of Practice. Smart Parking’s blatant disregard for accuracy and their gross mishandling of personal data—pulling someone else’s appeal details into my case—demonstrates nothing short of contempt for the POPLA process and data protection laws.

Given that Smart Parking has not even attempted to engage with or rebut the actual arguments in my appeal, I assert that their evidence is incomplete, unreliable, and fails to meet the required standards of an Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member. Their incompetence and this ridiculous submission should result in the immediate cancellation of the PCN.

1. GDPR Breach and Incompetence

Smart Parking’s submission is not only factually incorrect but also includes irrelevant personal details from another individual's appeal, which is a gross breach of GDPR. The mention of breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child is not only irrelevant to my case but constitutes a serious breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, which requires that personal data be processed in a manner that ensures its security and confidentiality.

This level of incompetence violates several sections of the BPA Code of Practice, including:

• Section 23.1(c): Operators must comply with all relevant legislation, including the Data Protection Act (UK GDPR). Including another person's personal data in my case demonstrates a total disregard for data protection laws.

• Section 23.1(a): Operators must act professionally and treat motorists fairly. The inclusion of someone else's details in my appeal shows a fundamental failure in professionalism.

Such a breach of both GDPR and the BPA Code of Practice makes Smart Parking’s evidence fundamentally unreliable and calls into question their fitness as an AOS member. Their mishandling of this case should result in the invalidation of the PCN.

2. Lack of Evidence Regarding Standing

The operator has provided no evidence that they have the right to issue parking charges at this location. While POPLA has, in the past, made the assumption that operators must have a contract simply because signage is present, this is not legally sufficient proof of authority to operate.

The presence of signage does not constitute evidence that the operator has the landowner's authorisation to issue parking charges or pursue these charges through enforcement. It is critical to understand that any party wishing to impose charges on private land must provide strict proof of their legal standing to do so. This requires more than assumptions or generalisations—it requires an unredacted, valid, and up-to-date contract with the landowner.

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states under Section 7.2 that operators must ensure they have written authorisation from the landowner, and this must be produced if challenged. The contract should clearly define:

• The land on which the operator may operate, with boundaries clearly specified.

• Any restrictions on hours of operation or parking control.

• Whether the operator is authorised to issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name or merely as an agent of the landowner.

• Whether any exemptions exist, such as for genuine customers or residents.

The contract must also set out the specific authority the operator has to enforce parking terms and the exact amount they are authorised to charge. It is not acceptable for the operator to simply assert that they have authority without producing this document.

In this case, Smart Parking has failed to provide any such contract, and their omission is telling. I challenge POPLA to recognise that without strict proof of an active and valid contract, the operator has no legal standing to enforce parking charges at this site. Any decision based on an assumption that the operator has a contract without seeing actual evidence would be fundamentally flawed and unjust.

Only an unredacted, up-to-date contract between the operator and the landowner that complies with BPA Code of Practice Section 7.3 should be accepted as valid proof. This is a minimum legal requirement, and failure to produce this document undermines the operator's entire case. It is not enough to assume that signage equals authorisation; strict proof is needed to validate the operator’s standing.

3. Operator’s Competence, Integrity, and Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice

Smart Parking’s submission exhibits a profound lack of competence and professionalism, which directly contravenes the standards laid out in the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). Their handling of this appeal is indicative of a broader failure to comply with the BPA CoP in several key areas, which should seriously call into question their ability to operate as an Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member.

• BPA CoP Section 2.4 clearly requires that operators must maintain high standards of professional conduct. Smart Parking’s submission, which contains inaccurate, irrelevant, and tampered evidence, shows they have failed to adhere to even the most basic professional standards. The use of evidence from an entirely unrelated appeal, containing personal details from another motorist, is not only grossly unprofessional but represents an utter disregard for data protection laws and the BPA’s own requirements for fair and transparent conduct.

• BPA CoP Section 23.1(a) obliges operators to act professionally and fairly when dealing with motorists. Smart Parking’s failure to respond to the points raised in my appeal and their inclusion of another individual’s personal data demonstrates a clear breach of this obligation. Their handling of the evidence is sloppy at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst.

• BPA CoP Section 23.1(c) also mandates that operators must comply with all relevant legislation, including the UK GDPR and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The inclusion of personal details from another case in my appeal submission constitutes a serious breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, which requires data to be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security. This is not a minor oversight but a significant failure in data management, which I will be reporting to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for investigation.

Further to this, I will also be reporting Smart Parking to the DVLA for serious breaches of the KADOE contract, which governs their access to driver data. Their gross mishandling of personal data in this case is indicative of a systemic failure to meet the conditions required under the KADOE contract, and I will be raising this issue with the DVLA as part of my complaint.

It is important to note that, while POPLA may not consider external reports as part of their assessment, the operator’s gross failure to meet both the legal requirements under GDPR and the BPA CoP standards should not be ignored when assessing their competence and reliability. These breaches demonstrate that the operator lacks the professionalism, competence, and integrity necessary to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices.

For these reasons, and given the operator’s complete failure to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, the PCN must be cancelled. Smart Parking's conduct, from their mishandling of personal data to their submission of outdated and tampered evidence, shows that they are not fit to operate in accordance with the standards required of an AOS member.

How do I go about these complaints ?

• DVLA Complaints Process
• BPA Complaints Form
• ICO Data Protection Complaints

And can I demand compensation ?

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Handling of POPLA Appeal [Case Reference]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]

I am writing to formally inform you of my complaint regarding the handling of my POPLA appeal. Given your demonstrated incompetence and unprofessionalism, I am not seeking an investigation but merely informing you of the reasons for this complaint and the actions I have already taken.

Key Issues:

1. GDPR Breach: Your submission in response to my POPLA appeal contained personal details from another motorist’s appeal, referencing breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that is entirely irrelevant to my case, as I am male and do not have a 6-month-old child. This constitutes a gross breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, and such a careless error only highlights your incompetence and unlawful handling of personal data.

2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Your submission also included signage evidence from 2017, with suspicious metadata showing the “creation” date as November 2017 and the “modified” date as May 2017. This, coupled with the fact that Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage no longer exists, shows that you have submitted outdated and misleading evidence to POPLA.

Escalation Already Initiated: As a result of these serious failings, I have already escalated a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding your violations of the KADOE contract. Additionally, I will be escalating this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) irrespective of your response. Your repeated failures in this case demonstrate a clear lack of professionalism and competence that needs to be addressed by regulatory authorities.

Next Steps: While I doubt you will cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at this stage, as the appeal has already been submitted to POPLA (a fee you have already wasted), I want to make it clear that your position is indefensible. Should you wish to withdraw your POPLA submission, it is already too late to save yourselves from the consequences of your own incompetence. You are now being held to account by your own errors.

I trust this matter will be duly noted on your side.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]

Here is a suggested complaint to (not so) Smart:

Quote

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Handling of POPLA Appeal [Case Reference]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Vehicle Registration Number: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN REFERENCE]
POPLA Appeal Reference: [POPLA REFERENCE]

I am writing to formally inform you of my complaint regarding the handling of my POPLA appeal. Given your demonstrated incompetence and unprofessionalism, I am not seeking an investigation but merely informing you of the reasons for this complaint and the actions I have already taken.

Key Issues:

1. GDPR Breach: Your submission in response to my POPLA appeal contained personal details from another motorist’s appeal, referencing breastfeeding and shopping with a 6-month-old child—information that is entirely irrelevant to my case, as I am male and do not have a 6-month-old child. This constitutes a gross breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, and such a careless error only highlights your incompetence and unlawful handling of personal data.

2. Tampered and Outdated Evidence: Your submission also included signage evidence from 2017, with suspicious metadata showing the “creation” date as November 2017 and the “modified” date as May 2017. This, coupled with the fact that Google Street View from March 2023 confirms that the signage no longer exists, shows that you have submitted outdated and misleading evidence to POPLA.

Escalation Already Initiated: As a result of these serious failings, I have already escalated a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding your violations of the KADOE contract. Additionally, I will be escalating this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) irrespective of your response. Your repeated failures in this case demonstrate a clear lack of professionalism and competence that needs to be addressed by regulatory authorities.

Next Steps: While I doubt you will cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at this stage, as the appeal has already been submitted to POPLA (a fee you have already wasted), I want to make it clear that your position is indefensible. Should you wish to withdraw your POPLA submission, it is already too late to save yourselves from the consequences of your own incompetence. You are now being held to account by your own errors.

I trust this matter will be duly noted on your side.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]