Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here are all the links again for the signage. I have checked and they are working and viewable. The PCN i will upload later today. 






https://ibb.co/XZQqkGgB
https://ibb.co/n8QV427L
https://ibb.co/ks5jTftt
https://ibb.co/BKHQXV78

There is NO parking signage from leaving the main road (Leckwith Road) into the Sports Campus area. The first signage is located in the parking bays area. After that, there is one or two signs dotted around.

I’m thinking of ignoring Smart Parking letter and wait and see what action they follow up with??

It would seem that both outcomes are the same?

But surely if my appeal gets rejected by every party they can still take me to court, which is what DCB Legal did to me last year when they sent me a letter for a similar thing but different place?

Thank you @DWMB2 for the sound advice, I shall indeed be appealing today and post here the outcome. Though I do hope i'm still within time as I believe the letter was dated 20th or 21st of Janruary?

I will take this as Smart Parking has discontinued their pursuit in the matter

I'm not sure I would. Check your spam folder and chase them. They may have changed, of course, but the last time I had an appeal upheld by Smart Parking they emailed me to tell me.

Late update.

Found this correspondance under the name of: donotreply@citysmarti.co.uk lurking in my Spam box last week and have not been able to act upon it until now. I have 28 days from the date of the letter (14.03.26) to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which I believe only gives me two days remaining! 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smart Parking Ltd

14/03/2026

www.smartparking.com

Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Birmingham, B377HE

Dear

Parking Charge:

Thank you for your recent communication.

Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period, we have extended the discount period until 31/03/2026.

Having noted your comments, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.
We can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued due to insufficient paid time. Our payment system shows that no valid payment was made for your vehicle registration **** *** for the 91 minutes that your vehicle remained on site.

As clearly stated on the car park signage, all motorists are required to purchase a valid ticket by entering the full and correct vehicle registration mark into the payment machine or by using an approved alternative payment method. A payment must be made to cover the full duration of the stay from point of entry to point of exit. As no payment was recorded for your vehicle, the Terms and Conditions have been breached.

As you were informed in our initial correspondence, we can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The parking contravention occurred on 10.01.2026, and this notice was issued on 21.01.2026, within the 14-day period required. You were also invited to provided us with the driver’s full name and current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time of the parking event.

If you wish to provide driver details, please send them via email to: COD@smartparking.com

Failure to provide these details, will result in Smart Parking using the provisions under POFA, 2012 to pursue you, the registered keeper, for the outstanding balance of the PC.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal further with IAS – you cannot do both.

The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, (IAS) using the instructions below. Please note, should you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PC will be due.

If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to visit the website,

Independent Appeals Service

The Independent Appeals Service provides the ability for people who have received a Parking Charge to appeal against it.

Independent Appeals Service · theias.org

where further details of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to IAS.

Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:

• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37 7HE.

• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card, please visit
www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge number to hand.

• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment service on 0330 057 6230.

Please have your Parking Charge number to hand. Please note that calls to this number cost
up to 7p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.

Yours sincerely,

Smart Parking Limited

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to to appeal today and look for information on here to help me fight this and in the meantime welcome all postive and helpful advice.

Found this information on here from @b789 to @davidmac used as a Letter of Claim response of which I take no credit for. I have made amendments to it as a draft and hope to use it as an appeal to IAS.

What's your thoughts?



This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out below.

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions, yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking. Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect of invoking keeper liability.

2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver, the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation, reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking. The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.

4. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator asserts that signs are clearly displayed throughout the site but has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance signage, no site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity to any alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed where terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer was made, let alone accepted.

5. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority. They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
6. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not. Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

7. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof. They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges. They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the operator is fatal.

In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Info for other users in what to expect when registering with IAS on the website.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have told us that you are being held liable for the parking charge.

What happens when I have submitted my Appeal?

Once you have submitted your appeal, the case will be sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account.

The Parking Operator is provided 5 working days to upload sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.

Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log in and see it. You will then have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any photographs or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your appeal you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. WARNING, the Adjudicator will assess ONLY the evidence provided by the operator and NOTHING MORE. You will not have the opportunity of making representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

You will then be notified by email when you are able to proceed further.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, what happens if you fill out all the relevant info on IAS and do not submit an appeal and wait for the operators reposnse? Just curious.