Free Traffic Legal Advice

A suggested wording for your complaint is below. It should be sent to complaints@smartparking.com. I would attach to this a copy of the correspondence you have shared with us today.

They will probably fob you off in their response, but the goal here is to ultimately escalate the complaint to the British Parking Association and the DVLA.

Quote

Subject: Formal Complaint, PCN #[REFERENCE]

Dear Sirs,

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an appeal against a parking charge (one has been submitted separately) but is instead a formal complaint regarding your handling of my case.

I am writing to make a formal complaint about your correspondence in respect of PCN #[REFERENCE], which amounts to a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) and, by virtue of this, your KADOE contract with the DVLA. 

Following receipt of your PCN, I appealed on behalf of the company as the registered keeper, pointing out that due to your failure to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), you are unable to recover the charge from us as the keeper. You responded with a letter dated [DATE], which is attached, falsely claiming that the notice was issued under PoFA. In the letter you claim:

"the PC was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012"

As you will know, paragraph 9(4) of PoFA is clear that the notice must be given (that is, delivered), within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.

By falsely claiming otherwise, you are in breach of the PPSSCoP and the KADOE contract for the following reasons:

1. Breach of the PPSSCoP
Section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP states:

8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:

d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

In the appeal, I explained that Smart Parking had failed to serve a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, having given the notice outside of the relevant period of 14 days. You then responded on [DATE] with the attached letter, claiming the ability to recover the charges from us under PoFA. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, and a breach of 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP.

As per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, this constitutes at least a Level 1 sanction for non-conformance.

2. Breach of the KADOE Contract
Clause C1.1 of your KADOE Contract with DVLA states:

The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.

By knowingly and falsely claiming compliance with PoFA, you have failed to comply with the terms of your KADOE contract, bringing into question your suitability to have access to sensitive registered keeper data.

As a result of these serious failings you should:

• Confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken
• Explain why your correspondence falsely claims the ability to recover charges under PoFA when you are, or ought to be, fully aware this is not true
• Issue a formal apology

I expect a response to my complaint within 14 days. Following your response, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the British Parking Association, and the DVLA.

Yours etc...

Subject: Formal Reminder – Appeal Decision Outstanding (PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number])

Dear Smart Parking Ltd,

I write in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice and my appeal submitted on 25th February 2025. I note that your correspondence at the time indicated:

"We will endeavour to respond to your appeal within 28 days."

Today marks the 28th day since submission, and I have not received any substantive response to the appeal. The only correspondence received was a request for driver details dated 6th March 2025, to which a formal complaint was submitted separately. That complaint also remains unanswered, despite a further chaser email being sent on 24th March 2025.

For clarity, this reminder concerns your failure to issue a decision on the appeal itself. You are required to respond accordingly, irrespective of any ongoing complaint.

Unless and until you do so, the matter remains unresolved and I require written confirmation that the charge is on hold. If you proceed without addressing my appeal, I will treat that as a breach of both the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the BPA’s requirements for fair and transparent operator conduct. I also reserve the right to escalate this failure to the BPA and DVLA.

Should this matter proceed to POPLA, please be advised that I will require you to produce a fully unredacted, contemporaneous contract or chain of authority flowing from the landowner, showing you have the right to issue PCNs in your own name at this specific site. I trust you are already aware of your evidential burden in this regard.

I expect a full response to this appeal without further delay.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Vehicle Registration Number]

POPLA Appeal

[COMPANY NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)

-Vs-

Smart Parking (Operator)

Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
 POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
 Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]

Case Overview:
We, [COMPANY NAME], the registered keeper (“we”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from Smart Parking (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. We appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected our appeal. It is our position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle we have no liability for the parking charge, and that our appeal should therefore be upheld. Our appeal is on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from us, the registered keeper of the vehicle. As a body corporate, we are clearly not the driver. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from us as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Smart Parking have failed to do so.

They have failed to deliver the notice to keeper within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as specified by 9(5) of the Act.

Date of Parking: 06/02/2025
Date of PCN issue: 19/02/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 21/02/2025
Elapsed time period: 15 days

As Smart Parking are unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold us liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, we cannot be held liable for the charge, and our appeal should be upheld.

2. Breach of the PPSSCoP - Misrepresentation

The parking charge notice issued by Smart Parking claimed that they would be able to hold us liable as the registered keeper, under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, despite the fact they were aware (or ought to have been aware) that they had not complied with the relevant conditions to do so. Following our appeal pointing this out, Smart Parking doubled down on their stance, claiming that the charge was 'issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012', despite the fact that PoFA requires the notice to be given (that is, delivered) within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.

This repeated misrepresentation is in direct contravention of section 8.1.1 (d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which states:

8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:

a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none
exists;
b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge
notice;
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper we have no liability for this charge, and we request that our appeal is upheld.