Free Traffic Legal Advice

The allowed time at the car park was 30 minutes, according to the pictures they sent in the letter I was there a total of 41 minutes. My friends mother was also in the car and she was on crutches at the time, I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not. This happened 10/06/25 and I received the letter today 23/06/25. The fine is £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Also parking was free for the 30 minutes.

That's the first (not so) Smart Parking NtK that I think I've ever seen that has been given within the relevant period as far as PoFA is concerned.

Absolutely not!!!! No one pays (not so) Smart Parking unless they are a fool and their money or low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. Show us the whole of the NtK, both sides, just to check for other possible PoFA failures. Even if there aren't others, this would eventually lead to a claim and is easily defended with the odds of it ever going all the way to a hearing at less than 1%.

Nah, it's PoFA compliant as far as I can see. You can mess with them by appealing and then when they reject that, appeal to the IAS, which will also be rejected but costs them money unless they concede.

The way this will be won is after they issue a claim which is easily defended and has a very high probability of it being struck out or discontinued just before the trial fee of £27 has to be paid by them.

For now, just appeal as the Keeper with the following:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

Your Notice to Keeper was issued 10 days after the alleged contravention. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a notice must be given—that is, delivered—within 14 days of the event in order to hold the keeper liable.

Delivery is only presumed if the notice was posted by first-class mail at least two working days before the expiry of the relevant period. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (Note 2, Section 8.1.2(e)) explicitly states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting, not simply the date of generation or handover to a mail consolidator. This is critical, because most bulk mailing services—such as those used by Smart Parking—typically operate on economy 3–4 day delivery schedules, which fall outside the timescale necessary for presumed delivery under PoFA.

Accordingly, without affirmative evidence that the NtK was actually posted via first-class mail in time to ensure delivery within the 14-day period, you cannot rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no lawful inference may be drawn in this regard. I am also lodging a formal complaint with your client about your aggressive and misleading enforcement conduct.

I suggest that you cancel this charge now to avoid further time-wasting or the expense to you of an IAS appeal.

Nah, it's PoFA compliant as far as I can see. You can mess with them by appealing and then when they reject that, appeal to the IAS, which will also be rejected but costs them money unless they concede.

The way this will be won is after they issue a claim which is easily defended and has a very high probability of it being struck out or discontinued just before the trial fee of £27 has to be paid by them.

For now, just appeal as the Keeper with the following:

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

Your Notice to Keeper was issued 10 days after the alleged contravention. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a notice must be given—that is, delivered—within 14 days of the event in order to hold the keeper liable.

Delivery is only presumed if the notice was posted by first-class mail at least two working days before the expiry of the relevant period. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (Note 2, Section 8.1.2(e)) explicitly states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting, not simply the date of generation or handover to a mail consolidator. This is critical, because most bulk mailing services—such as those used by Smart Parking—typically operate on economy 3–4 day delivery schedules, which fall outside the timescale necessary for presumed delivery under PoFA.

Accordingly, without affirmative evidence that the NtK was actually posted via first-class mail in time to ensure delivery within the 14-day period, you cannot rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no lawful inference may be drawn in this regard. I am also lodging a formal complaint with your client about your aggressive and misleading enforcement conduct.

I suggest that you cancel this charge now to avoid further time-wasting or the expense to you of an IAS appeal.

Wow thanks for that, that's incredibly helpful. The problem is like an idiot I have already sent that appeal in straight after receiving the letter (23/06) so they know I got it within the time frame.

I read somewhere that the time doesn't start until I leave the car anyway and not when the images of me entering the car park were taken, so my friends mother taking longer to get in and out of the car would likely have taken more than that minute, although I guess that 10 minute grace period is to cover for things like that.

I'll still send what you wrote when I hear off them though so thank you.

If the recipient of the notice appealed on day 13, he might struggle to run an argument that the claimant cannot prove the notice was delivered within 14 days.

If the presumption that a notice sent by post (PoFA itself doesn't specify first class post) can be rebutted, I would suggest it can be rebutted both ways (ie, if the sender can show that it was received sooner than that, by, for example, showing that the appellant appealed before the presumed delivery date and therefore must have received it sooner).

It won't 'work' either way in the sense that Smart don't accept appeals (they don't make any money from doing so). My point was more that seeking to put them to proof that the notice was delivered within 14 days might be made somewhat futile, by the fact that they can use the date they received your appeal as proof that it was received in time.

If you have already appealed, then their portal probably won't let you appeal again anyway, and the rest of b789's earlier post holds true: it'll be a case of waiting for them to escalate things.

Just got an email saying my appeal was rejected.





So I guess my next move is to send what b789 gave me, but who am I sending that to? IAS?