Free Traffic Legal Advice

Are you saying that you did not update your V5C address when you moved? You can easily do that online but it will not affect this case, as the operator can only have one attempt to get the Keepers details from the DVLA.

You cannot simply "reset" this but you also shouldn't be panicking about it. You can safely ignore DRP or any other debt recovery agent as they are powerless to actually do anything except to try and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. Never ever enter not any communication with a powerless debt collector.

The first thing you must do is send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the DPO of (not so) Smart Parking, instructing them to update their records with your current address for service and to delete your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them. You will have to provide evidence of your current address by including  copy of a bill or statement showing your name and current address.

At the same time, you can also send a formal complaint to Smart which the should, in theory, treat as an appeal and when rejecting, provide you with a POPLA code.

For the DRN use the following and email it to dpo@smartparking.com and CC in yourself:

To: Smart Parking Ltd
Email: dpo@smartparking.com
Subject: Data Rectification Notice – PCN No.: [PCN number]
VRM: [INSERT VRM]

Dear Data Protection Officer,

This is a formal Data Rectification Notice under Article 16 and Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), requiring immediate correction and erasure of inaccurate personal data held by Smart Parking Ltd.

Please take notice that my current address for service is:

[Insert Full Name]
[Insert Full Correct Address]

You are instructed to update your records accordingly and to delete any and all references to my previous address, which must no longer be used for any correspondence. Continued use of an old address, now known to be incorrect, would constitute unlawful processing and a breach of UK GDPR.

As required, I attach a copy of a recent [utility bill / bank statement] as proof of my current address.

Please confirm in writing within one calendar month that my data has been rectified and that the old address has been erased from your records.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

As for the complaint, use the following and send it as a PDF attachment in an email to complaints@smartparking.com and also CC in yourself:

To: Smart Parking Ltd

Subject: Formal Complaint and Appeal – PCN [INSERT REFERENCE] / VRM [INSERT VRM]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write as the registered keeper of vehicle registration [INSERT VRM], in relation to the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice concerning a visit to the Mercure Hotel on [INSERT DATE].

This is a formal complaint which must also be treated as an appeal under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states that any complaint relating to the issue of a parking charge must be handled as an appeal and responded to accordingly.

Grounds of Appeal

• The driver was a legitimate guest of the Mercure Hotel and followed the instructions displayed on-site, including entering the full vehicle registration into the terminal at reception. No breach of any displayed terms occurred.

• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not received at the keeper’s correct address. I only became aware of the matter when a debt recovery letter was forwarded to me by the current occupants of my former address. This was the first time I had sight of any correspondence related to this PCN.

• As the NtK was sent to an outdated address, it was not “given” to the keeper as required by Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The legal requirement is that the NtK must be delivered (or deemed delivered) to the keeper within 14 days of the alleged event.

• Issuing the NtK to an address that was no longer valid—regardless of what was recorded at the DVLA at the time—does not satisfy the condition that the NtK be “given” within the prescribed period. Accordingly, you cannot rely on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable.

Required Action

I request that you either:

1. Cancel the charge outright, given that the vehicle was registered correctly at the hotel reception and no contravention occurred; or

2. Re-issue the Parking Charge Notice to the correct address for service provided under separate cover via my Data Rectification Notice to your Data Protection Officer. In doing so, you must acknowledge that PoFA Schedule 4 does not apply, and any future correspondence must be based solely on the assumption that only the driver is liable, not the registered keeper.

If you decline to cancel the charge, then this complaint must be treated as an appeal, and you are required to issue a POPLA code to allow the matter to be escalated for independent review.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Current Address]

Under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b):


This imposes a requirement of actual (or deemed) delivery, not merely dispatch. The use of the word “given” is deliberate and has a settled legal meaning—it refers to the point at which the notice is presumed to be delivered.

PoFA permits a rebuttable presumption that a properly addressed, stamped letter is deemed given on the second working day after posting (Paragraph 9(6)), but this is only valid if the address is a proper current address for service.

Yes, it is a legal requirement under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 for the Keeper to notify the DVLA promptly of a change of address.

However, this has no bearing on whether a parking operator has complied with PoFA. The question is whether the NtK was “given” within 14 days, and delivery to an outdated address where the keeper no longer resides cannot amount to valid service, even if the DVLA still held that address.

The phrase “current address for service” in PoFA must be interpreted in light of its context. Paragraph 2(1) defines it as either:


If (ii) applies (i.e. DVLA registered address), the operator may assume service only if the address is still current. But if the address is outdated and the NtK is not received, service fails. PoFA does not give parking operators a “free pass” simply because they relied on DVLA data.

Operators cannot have it both ways—either they comply strictly with PoFA and its delivery conditions (and benefit from the right to pursue the Keeper), or they fail to do so and must pursue only the Driver. This is in line with ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], where the Supreme Court acknowledged that PoFA is a self-contained statutory regime requiring strict compliance.

If the NtK is not “given” (i.e. delivered) within 14 days, the operator loses the right to hold the Keeper liable—even if the Keeper failed to update the V5C. The failure to update the V5C may be a DVLA enforcement matter, but it does not excuse the operator’s non-compliance with PoFA.

The operator is always free to pursue the Driver instead, if known.

The OP could add the following to the formal complaint:

While I accept that a registered keeper is under a legal duty to update the address on the V5C, that obligation is a matter for the DVLA and has no bearing on Smart Parking’s own statutory obligation to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b), the NtK must be given within 14 days of the parking event. Service to an outdated address where the Keeper no longer resides does not satisfy this requirement, and PoFA cannot apply.

Smart Parking may not rely on any deemed service rule where they have sent notices to an address that is demonstrably no longer valid. Since the NtK was not “given” as required, the right to pursue the Keeper has not arisen, and the charge must be cancelled or re-issued without reliance on PoFA.

By all means split this discussion off.

There are two separate legal positions:

1. Was the operator compliant with PoFA when issuing the NtK?

This is judged at the time the NtK was sent. If the operator used the DVLA address (even if outdated due to the Keeper's oversight), then:


2. Can the operator still enforce keeper liability after learning that the NtK was never received?

This is a different and more nuanced point.

Once the Keeper informs the operator that:


Then — even though PoFA compliance at the time of issue still stands — the operator can no longer rely on the presumption that the NtK was “given” under PoFA 9(6).

Why? Because the legal presumption of delivery is rebutted. PoFA requires the NtK to be delivered to the address — not to the person — but if the address wasn't actually valid at the time, that element of compliance collapses in hindsight, because the address was never “a current address for service.”

Both are technically correct — but they apply to different points in time and legal reasoning.

While the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9) does not require that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) be received by the keeper personally, it does require that the notice be delivered to a current address for service for the keeper. Paragraph 9(2)(f) is clear...


Paragraph 9(6) provides a rebuttable presumption (my emphasis):


This presumption operates in the operator’s favour only where the address used was, at the time, a valid address for service. It does not create a blanket entitlement to assume delivery regardless of the factual circumstances. Once it becomes apparent that the notice was not, in fact, delivered to a valid service address, the statutory presumption under Paragraph 9(6) no longer applies.

So, where the Keeper later contacts the operator and:


...then the operator is on notice that the NtK was not delivered to a current address for service. Even if the failure to update the V5C address was the Keeper’s own oversight (which may be a separate offence under s.22(1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994), it does not change the legal fact that the NtK was not delivered to an address where the Keeper could be served at the time.

As such, the operator cannot continue to rely on the Paragraph 9(6) presumption, because the “contrary” has been proved — i.e. that delivery to a valid address did not occur. The operator is not entitled to simply disregard this information and proceed as though delivery had occurred.

PoFA requires delivery to an address that is currently valid for service at the time the NtK is issued, not merely an address that appears valid because it was obtained from the DVLA. Once it becomes clear that the address used did not meet this requirement, the conditions for holding the Keeper liable under Schedule 4 are no longer met.

I’m not sure which bit of this is not clear:

However, we can see that your new address details were sent to our date protection officer on the 19/05/2025, and in light of this we have cancelled the parking charge, therefore no further action is required.