Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi. Can you help.


I parked at Telford Parking Zone 21512, managed by SMART Parking on 31/03/25 From 20:03 till 20:36


Unable to use the phone app at the time, and unable to make any payments via phone banking (due to phone limitations), I checked the signage for clarity.


The sign nearby said that...

...a. if using the onsite equipment to pay, be aware that there is no requirement to buy the ticket from the machine, should the driver be paying the ticket later but within the same payment period.

...b.there is no need to display the ticket in / on the vehicle

...c.that the entire night period (in this case 20:00 on 31/03/25 to 06:00 on 01/04/25 ) is covered by one payment of £0.50p


I returned home, and early the next morning on the SMART Parking made the one-off payment of £0.50p. Plus, as it turned out, 2 lots of £0.20p for admin/text charges.
This total payment of £0.90p was accepted by SMART Parking payment app for that car.


However, the app would not permit me to choose the appropriate 1-hour time period (20.00-21.00 the previous evening) as it had been in reality.
So I chose the one available, namely 05:00-06:00 of the current date.


The payment owed for that selected hour of that overnight period was the same as that payable for the actual time of parking.


The payment was actually the entire overnight parking fee in any case, as the hourly payment and  the overnight payment were the same.


A Parking Charge Notice dated 11/04/25 arrived on 13/04/25 in the post, advising that the fee paid in this transaction was rejected for "05A - Insufficient Time".


I made the Step One Informal Appeal to Smart Parking via email, attaching pictures of all the above evidence, as well as screen shots of the payment made on the SMART Parking app, and the receipt thereof.


This was rejected by SMART Parking in a letter dated 25/04/25.
It appears to state that the reason for rejection was that the vehicle was validated for the period of 01/04/25. No validation was made however for the period of 31/03/25.
This wording suggests that, in an overnight stay, payment must be made for the period of the night before midnight, following the 20:00 start, AND the period of the morning after midnight, prior to 06:00. And that somehow the two payments must add up to the £0.50p owing.


This seems a petty requirement. No one could be expected to dash out of a night shift, for example, to "top up the meter".
There is in fact no reference to this requirement on the signage.
Nor is there the capacity to make this choice on SMART Parking payment app.


The rejection re-asserts that because no payment was made specifically for the payment period 20:00-21:00 on 31/03/25, that itself created the contravention of Insufficient Paid Time.


Again, it is the exact opposite which is true, namely, Sufficient Time Paid has been met on the app, as evidenced on the app and the receipt. The amount to be paid had to be £0.50p. It was. It also was the full amount to be paid for an overnight stay between 20:00 on 31/03/25 and 06:00 on 01/04/25. So, again, payment period paid in full.
It was only the limitations of the SMART Parking payment app that rendered it impossible to lodge any part of the payment against the previous evening.


The rejection goes on to say that a ticket must be obtained for the 32 (sic) minutes the vehicle was on site. This is contradicted (as stated above) by the on-site signage which states that the driver does NOT need to obtain the ticket on-site, if they will be paying alternatively elsewhere. This clearly has to be stated in the event of the parking ticket machine not producing printed tickets.


Consequently, I refute that the PC has been issued correctly.


I followed all the instructions on the signage despite not being able to do it on my phone at the time in question.
This was not through any underhand attempt to dodge the contractual obligation.
In fact, I made full payment of the overnight fee, using SMART Parking payment app.
The full payment has been made.
No one has been left short.
The contract has been completed
There has been no harm (financial or otherwise) to SMART Parking.


The payment may have not been received in the way they might have wanted to see it. But it does not mean the payment was not paid. If was paid. In full. And the only reason it didn't look right for SMART Parking was because their payment app rendered it impossible to make the payment in the way they suggested.


I attach all documents referred to above. Please would you advise me how I should best approach making the next appeal to POPLA.

Please follow link for supporting photo documentation.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/X8HHigLf8dijY8R17


Many thanks

To H.C.Anderson

Thank you for that.
I know that there is more than one way to pay for your time parked.
These include mobile phone, of course.

In the signage "Important Terms & Conditions", it refers in Parking and Payment Terms to the second condition..."if you do not have a valid permit, and payment is required..."
...then it explains that you must make the payment in a accordance with the tariffs.

I have read this set of conditions a few times. This one is explaining what to do if you cannot make the payment here and now for unexpected reasons. In this case, the phone dying, which meant no chance of accessing the app, and no chance of making a payment online.
The setup has to function so as to allow for that.

The payment was subsequently made in full before the payment period  ended.

I'll carry on looking for something to support my assumption there. But that is how I had read all the muckers!

The OP's posts are replete with 'I parked' and 'I made the Step One appeal'.

The cat is out of the bag I fear...and still is in this thread.

To H C Andersen

Thank you for the follow-up

I've just sent a reply to another user who raised what appears to be a similar point.

Lack of familiarity with the tech of the forum, plus lack of certainty over what is safe / unsafe to display in a post, have probably combined to me posting more than is necessary.

I have removed from the link any documents showing names and addresses  However, I have every reason to believe I am safe using the word "I" throughout the commentary.

Many thanks

To B789
Thank you for such a full explanation.
I know that the registered keeper has not identified the driver to the parking company.
Me...I'm a third party in all this. I have been using "I" simply because it's quicker to type that. I wrote the commentary, given the full details. On this forum, it's not a legal document, I guess. I could have gone with the old skool "SWIM", I imagine. But as I am not in the equation for this incident, I felt I could safely say "I". I know it's not true. But this isn't a legal document...right??!! (please!! Lol!)


What strikes me as "discordant" in this case is that the guy could not pay the parking as he left the car park, as his phone has run out of juice.

After returning home, and recharging the phone, he was able to go online  and make the payment anyway.

As it turned out the app didn't allow him to choose an earlier time slot. So he chose the time slot he was currently in.
The amount paid was accurate and complete.

In fact the cost was identical to that of someone paying for the whole  night shift until 06:00. THAT pay period was drawing to a close at  05:56 when he was making his payment .

He had paid for the full night shift, before the night shift ended.

The correct amount was paid in full. The company
Received the correct total. My friend paid the correct total. So, where is the aggrieved / hurt party? My friend paid in full . The company received the full amount...and everyone hopefully will see an unethical grab failing.

Whilst I realise you used the first person for expediency, it would be preferable if you didn't.

We've seen a few cases go awry where well-meaning folks have been posting here to help a friend/relative, but haven't made that clear to us.