It matters no one iota what date they applied to and received your DVLA Keeper data. What matters is the date they issued the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
Date of alleged contravention 14th April 2025. Date of issue of the NtK 28th April 2025. Therefore the date the NtK was given was 30th April 2025.
The relevant period for serving (giving) the NtK is within 14 days after the date of the alleged contravention. Basic maths, which the incompetents at (not so) Smart Parking so not seem able to comprehend, most likely sue to intellectual malnourishment, shows anyone who has a grade 5 education or higher that it was given 16 days after.
So, this single point is enough to fatally lose the case for (not so) Smart. Your response only needs to highlight this to the assessor that there can be no Keeper liability and the driver has not been identified.
However, they have, conveniently, failed to produce a copy of the original NtK in their evidence pack (I wonder why?). The POPLA assessor will not have a copy of this and they will be relying on the word of (not so) Smart and you cannot add evidence at this stage. So, it needs to be made exceptionally clear to the assessor that (not so) Smart are a bunch of lying bar stewards and highlight that their waffle about the date the DVLA data was received is not the date that the NtK was issued. Good luck with that.
It's a pity that no demand that (not so) Smart evidence a valid contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to operate and issue PCNs at the location. Unfortunately you cannot introduce new facts in your response, but I would hazard a guess that they do not and never have had a valid contract.
All you need for your response to the operators evidence is to copy and paste the following into the webform:
This comment responds to the operator’s evidence and reinforces the primary ground of appeal: that no keeper liability can apply because the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued and therefore given within the strict time limits of the "relevant period" required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The operator is attempting to mislead the POPLA assessor by asserting that they received the DVLA data on 23rd April 2025 and then "promptly" issued the PCN. This is entirely irrelevant. The legal requirement under paragraph 9(4) and 9(6) of PoFA is that the NtK must be given to the keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention.
The date of the alleged contravention was 14th April 2025. The NtK was issued on 28th April 2025, as stated in my appeal and not disputed by the operator. Under PoFA 9(6), a notice sent by post is deemed “given” on the second working day after posting, which in this case is 30th April 2025.
That is 16 days after the alleged parking event – two days too late. It is therefore outside the strict statutory deadline. There is no dispute that I, the appellant, have not been identified as the driver and am under no legal obligation to do so. Accordingly, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to me as the Keeper.
Crucially, the operator has not included a copy of the original NtK in their evidence pack. This omission is damning. Without it, they cannot demonstrate compliance with the requirements of PoFA, including the actual date of issue and the statutory wording. It is difficult to view this failure as anything other than a deliberate attempt to suppress the most important evidence in this appeal.
Worse still, the operator tries to distract the assessor by focusing on the date they received the DVLA data (23rd April) – a date which is completely irrelevant to the PoFA compliance test. This is not simply a misunderstanding; it appears to be a conscious attempt to mislead the assessor into thinking they complied with PoFA, when the opposite is true.
By their own admission, the NtK was issued on 28th April – five days after they say they obtained my data. That delay is entirely their responsibility and shows they failed to act with reasonable diligence if they were aiming to meet the PoFA deadline. The fact they then try to blame the DVLA timing shows they are not being honest or transparent.
To be clear:
– The NtK was issued on 28 April 2025
– It is deemed given on 30 April 2025
– That is 16 days after the alleged parking event on 14 April 2025
– That breaches PoFA 9(4) and 9(6)
– The operator has not provided the NtK to allow the assessor to verify anything
– The operator has not identified the driver
– Therefore, keeper liability cannot apply
The operator’s failure to meet the statutory deadlines, their omission of the most crucial document, and their blatant attempt to mislead the assessor with irrelevant dates all point to one conclusion: the appeal must be allowed.
