Free Traffic Legal Advice

thank you

Can you advise where I send the POPLA Appeal to ?

Plus advise regarding the complaint to DVLA and BPA is very much apprecited.

apologies - I missed that!

Just an update following the chase up  of the formal complaint - I have this morning received an email stating the below:

"
Good Morning,

Thank you for your email.

We can confirm that the above parking charge was issued under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). The parking contravention occurred on 06.02.2025, the registered keeper details were received on 17.02.2025, after which the PC was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012. If you were not the driver at the time of the parking event, please provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the contact details below. In the event that you fail to provide these details, we will use the provisions under POFA, 2012, and continue to pursue you the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance.
 
Please send the details requested above via email to:
               
                appeals@smartparking.com
 
Or alternatively please post to:
 
Smart Parking Ltd
Unit 43 Elmdon Trading Estate
Bickenhill Lane
Marston Green
Birmingham
B37 7HE.
 
In the event that you fail to provide these details, we will use the provisions under POFA, 2012, and continue to pursue you the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance.

We would like to confirm that as you have made an appeal with POPLA all the requested documentation will be uploaded to the online POPLA portal for you to be able to view in due course.
You will receive an email confirmation when you are able to review this information. "

If it were me I'd be tempted not to bother with any further correspondence with Smart at all. Your company has acted in good faith and taken all the steps that might reasonably be expected to engage with the issue - in response, Smart have chosen to repeatedly misrepresent their position.

You now have ample evidence that this was not simply a one-off error when they issued the charge, but instead a deliberate and repeated attempt to rely on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

Regardless of whether you engage in any further correspondence with Smart, I think you should absolutely escalate a complaint to the BPA and the DVLA. I should hopefully have some time this evening to draft something up for the BPA complaint. They should be sanctioned for their poor conduct.

crawl back into your regulatory sinkhole

I know their correspondence address is in Birmingham, but still 

Here's a draft for the BPA. You'll need to fill in details where there are [SQUARE BRACKETS]. I have also suggested a number of Appendices, which you should attach alongside your complaint. See if there are any breaches I may have missed.

Dear BPA

This is a formal complaint submitted on behalf of [COMPANY NAME], in respect of repeated breaches of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) by Smart Parking, in both the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice, and their subsequent handling of an appeal and complaint.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an attempt to appeal the charge (a POPLA appeal has been submitted separately), this is a complaint about Smart’s processes and communications, which are in breach of the PPSSCoP.

I have summarised the breaches of the PPSSCoP as follows:

Breach #1: Parking Charge Notice

[COMPANY NAME] were issued a PCN (Appendix 1), as the registered keeper of the vehicle, for an alleged parking event. The parking event took place on Thursday, 6th February 2025, and the PCN was issued on Wednesday, 19th February 2025, and is therefore presumed delivered on Friday 21^st February 2025. In order to hold [COMPANY NAME] liable as the registered keeper, Smart Parking must comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA).

PoFA states:

9(4)       The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)          The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)          A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) 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.

As the notice was issued on Wednesday 19^th February, then as per  Paragraph 9(6), it is presumed delivered on Friday 21^st February 2025. The notice has therefore been delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days, and accordingly there can be no keeper liability under PoFA. Despite this, the PCN issued by Smart Parking falsely claimed to be able to hold us liable as the registered keeper under PoFA.

This is in direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP, which expressly prohibits a parking operator from serving notices that state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance.

Breach #2: First response to appeal

Following receipt of the PCN, [COMPANY NAME] appealed as the registered keeper, pointing out the lack of liability under PoFA (Appendix 2). On [DATE], Smart Parking responded via email (Appendix 3).

This correspondence repeated the false claim that they are able to use PoFA to hold the keeper liable, and further compounded this claim by suggesting that merely issuing the notice within 14 days of the parking incident is sufficient. As already outlined above, PoFA requires that the notice is delivered within 14 days, not merely issued.

This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breach #1 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.

Breach #3: Second response to appeal

On [DATE], Smart Parking rejected our appeal, providing a POPLA code (Appendix 4). In this rejection, they once again falsely claimed the ability to hold us liable as the registered keeper under PoFA. This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breaches #1 and #2 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.

Breach #4: Response to complaint

Due to Smart Parking’s unacceptable conduct, we submitted a formal complaint to them on [DATE] (Appendix 5). On 27^th March 2025, we received a response to our formal complaint (Appendix 6). Astonishingly, Smart Parking repeated for a 4^th time their false claim that they can use PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable.

This correspondence is a further direct breach of section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that on its own under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance. When considered in combination with breaches #1 and #2 above, this would amount to a Level 2 non-conformance, as it represents repeated breaches set out in level 1 examples from Annex H.

Breach #5: Failure to respond to complaint within the prescribed timescales

Our formal complaint was sent to Smart Parking on 7^th March 2025. 11.3 of the PPSSCoP requires operators to acknowledge all complaints within 14 days. Despite this, we did not hear back for far longer than this, only receiving a response on 27^th March 2025, 20 days after our complaint. This is a direct breach of section 11.3 of the PPSSCoP. Annex H of the PPSSCoP indicates that under the Sanction Scheme, this is an example of Level 1 non-conformance.

Summary:

As outlined above, in their handling our case, including the issuing of a PCN, their responses to our appeal and complaint, Smart Parking have made at least 5 separate breaches of the PPSSCoP. They have committed at least 5 breaches that would on their own each warrant a Level 1 non-conformance sanction, according to Annex H of the PPSSCoP.

When taken in combination, it is our position that these breaches are far more serious. They cannot be dismissed as mere human error, or good faith mistakes. Their refusal to correctly represent the law as outlined in PoFA can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the law, and therefore the authority under which they are operating. Taken in combination, we contend this constitutes dishonesty, and a deliberate misrepresentation of authority. We also contend this meets the threshold for higher culpability as per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, as their conduct represents intentional action, misleading tactics, and continued breaches after notification of the same.

According to Annex H of the PPSSCoP, we believe their continued conduct would constitute a Level 4 example of non-conformance, for which the starting point would be a suspension of membership.

Such misconduct is unbecoming of an accredited operator, and by association risks harming the reputation of the British Parking Association. We trust that you will therefore take this complaint with the seriousness it deserves, and sanction Smart Parking accordingly.

Further to the appeal to POPLA - Smart Parking seems to be more responsive at this point - they have already uploaded their 'evidence'.

POPLA have advise we have 7 days to comment.....

There are two documents they have uploaded - one is their explanation (there are many images of their signage etc which I haven't included int he attachment) and the second is the parking fine along with images and the emails we have sent along with their replies.....


ONE THING I DO NOTE IN THE EVIDENCE:

"Parking charge and any notes
The Parking Charge was issued to the driver for Unauthorised Parking. As the vehicle remained on site 94 minutes and the driver failed to display a valid permit the parking charge was incurred correctly.

Registered keeper details and liability trail
As of 14th February 2025, DVLA confirmed that "XXXXXXXX" was the registered keeper of the vehicle. "XXXXX" appealed as the driver on the date of contravention. "

The company name is incorrect and not in full int he original summary letter from Smart Parking - this maybe a petty statement from me

and the it states XXXXX appealed as the driver...... this is my personal name here ? I havent appealed as the driver.... ive appealed on behalf of the company ?

Are there any comments you would advise uploading to the POPLA appeal case ?

Thanks in advance


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Can you please show us a redacted version of the other document they have uploaded?

Most of the one you've shown us is irrelevant waffle from Smart (no change there), but it'd be useful to see the full extent of their evidence pack to advise on your comments.

DOn't attach the documents as PDF that we are required to download. Just use DropBox or Google Drive to host the documents and then we can review them and provide advice.