(not so) Smart Parking have now joined the IPC and are no longer BPA members. So, any appeal you make will be an exercise in futility. Whilst the Keeper cannot be liable as they have failed to give the Notice to Keeper (NtK) within the relevant period and so they cannot rely on PoFA, the only way this is going to be won is after they issue a county court claim, it is defended and they eventually discontinue. You are looking at a process that is going to take anything from 9 months to a year+ to conclude.
However, if you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to (not so) Smart Parking.
To set the ball rolling, all you need to do is send an appeal, only as the Keeper, and wait for the rejection. After the initial appeal rejection, you will receive a load of useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless and their only function is to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
After that, you will eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from whichever bulk litigator they decide to use. We will provide a suitable response to the LoC and eventually you will receive an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will advise on how to respond and defend the claim. In due course the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
For now, it's an easy one to deal with… as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) 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 has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Just to assist you to understand why the Keeper cannot be liable for this charge, the date of the alleged contravention was Monday 12th May and your NtK was issued on Friday 23rd May, which means that the notice was not given until Wednesday 28th May. I will leave you to work out the number of days from the date of the alleged contravention and the date the NtK was deemed given. However, if it is too hard for you to do the maths, suffice it to say that the NtK was not given within the relevant period as required by PoFA paragraph 9(4)(b).
As you are trying to rely on Keeper liability in your NtK but have failed to issue it in time to be able to hold the Keeper liable, you have breached section 8.1.1(d) of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Again, I will leave you to look it up, but suffice it to say, you are also in breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA and are therefore using my data unlawfully. I have submitted a separate complaint to the DVLA about your conduct and expect them to investigate and carry out any necessary sanctions.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
I also advise you to make a formal complaint to the DVLA. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
• Go to:
https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the
Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:
I am submitting a formal complaint against Smart Parking Ltd, an IPC AOS member (although their NtK is issued with BPA AOS information) with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: Smart Parking Ltd
Date of PCN issue: Friday 23rd May 2025
Date of alleged contravention: Monday 12th May 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Smart Parking Ltd, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.
The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.
In this case, Smart Parking Ltd has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:
Smart Parking issued a Notice to Keeper (‘NtK’) dated Friday 23rd May 2025 in respect of an alleged contravention on Monday 12th May 2025. This NtK was sent by post and is therefore deemed to have been delivered on Wednesday 28th May 2025, in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Paragraph 9(6). This is outside the statutory 14-day window (the relevant period) required by PoFA Paragraph 9(5), meaning keeper liability cannot be established.
Despite this, Smart Parking’s NtK falsely claims keeper liability under PoFA, in direct contravention of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, which states:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
This breach of the PPSCoP renders Smart Parking’s use of my data unlawful. They are attempting to pursue the keeper as if PoFA applies, when it plainly does not. This undermines the legal safeguards around data use and accountability.
The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.
This may include:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
I know for a fact that this operator is a serial abuser of the Keeper data they receive from the DVLA and persistently claim Keeper liability under PoFA but regularly do not issue their NtKs in time to comply with the requirements of service within the relevant period. I fully expect the DVLA to confirm that in this case, the breach of the KADOE contract confirms that my Keeper data, as provided by the DVLA, is therefore being used unlawfully.
I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
