Free Traffic Legal Advice

That is helpful - thank you. Wasnt suggesting that I use the it wasn't me angle but more a reply to the comment. I will pull a draft together and post it here for comment. Thank you so far...

Grounds for appeal

1. Failure to Comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Payment Deadline in the Notice to Keeper
2. Requirement for Strict Proof of the Posting Date of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
3. Incorrect Appeal Deadline Stated on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
4. Failure to Apply the Mandatory 10-Minute Grace Period (PPSCoP Annex B, Table B1)
5. No evidence of landholder authority

---

1. Failure to Comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Payment Deadline in the Notice to Keeper

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Smart Parking Ltd contains a significant error in how it sets the payment deadline. The NtK states:

"If payment is not received within 28 days of the date this parking charge was issued, a £10 administration charge will be levied and the case may be passed on to a debt recovery agent."

This is non-compliant with Section 8.1.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which states:

"Motorists must be allowed to appeal up to 28 days from the day after they received the Notice."

The PPSCoP further clarifies in Note 2 of Section 8.1.2 that:

"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, 'working day' means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales."

It stands to reason that the 28-day deadline for payment must also be calculated from the date of receipt of the NtK, not its issue date. The NtK’s wording conflicts with this requirement and misleads recipients into believing that they have fewer days to pay or appeal than is actually required by the PPSCoP.

On this basis alone, the PCN has been issued incorrectly and must be cancelled.

2. Requirement for Strict Proof of the Posting Date of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)

As already noted in Point 1, Smart Parking's NtK fails to comply with the requirements of the PPSCoP by incorrectly stating that payment must be made within 28 days of the issue date, rather than the receipt date.

I put the operator to provide strict proof that the NtK was posted on the same date that it was "issued." Section 8.1.2 of the PPSCoP makes it clear that:

"Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g., the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system)."

Simply stating that the NtK was "issued", which means "generated", on a specific date is insufficient to demonstrate compliance. Without evidence, such as a dated proof of posting, there is no way to confirm the presumed delivery timeline. If Smart Parking cannot produce such evidence, the deemed receipt date cannot be established, and the NtK must be deemed invalid for failing to meet the requirements of the PPSCoP.

3. Incorrect Appeal Deadline Stated on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)

Another breach of the PPSCoP is the information provided on the back of the NtK, which incorrectly states that the driver has 28 days to appeal from the issue date of the notice.

Section 8.1.2 of the PPSCoP clearly states that motorists must be allowed to appeal up to 28 days from the date of receipt of the notice. As noted in Point 1, receipt is presumed to be two working days after the notice is posted unless the contrary is proven.

By stating an incorrect appeal deadline based on the issue date rather than the receipt date, Smart Parking misleads motorists and fails to adhere to the requirements of the PPSCoP. This misinformation further demonstrates the operator's disregard for compliance and fairness.

This is yet another instance of the operator's failure to follow the PPSCoP, and therefore the PCN must be deemed invalid and cancelled.

4. Failure to Apply the Mandatory 10-Minute Grace Period (PPSCoP Annex B, Table B1)

The permit purchased for parking on the date in question expired at 15:20, and the ANPR system recorded the vehicle exiting at 15:29. This is a 9-minute period after expiry, during which time the vehicle was in motion rather than parked.

According to Annex B, Table B1 of the PPSCoP, a minimum grace period of 10 minutes must be applied after a parking session has expired before enforcement action can be taken. The PPSCoP states:

"The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators."

Since the vehicle exited within this mandatory minimum grace period, no contravention occurred. The PCN has therefore been issued in direct breach of the PPSCoP, making it invalid.

This is yet another example of Smart Parking failing to comply with the PPSCoP, and as a result, the PCN must be cancelled.

5. No evidence of landholder authority
 
Smart Parking, an operator with known history of issuing PCNs without a valid contract flowing from the landowner to do so, is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Conclusion:

In light of the operators many blatant failures to fully comply with the requirements of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, as noted above, and doubt that they even have a valid contract to operate at the location, POPLA cannot justify the operator to have issued the PCN correctly and should order the operator to cancel it.