Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good day

I just received a letter from smart denying my appeal.

Attached is a copy of the letter

Your next steps are:

• A POPLA appeal
• A formal complaint to Smart Parking about their misrepresentation of their position

Your POPLA appeal can be worded as below. For your reason for appeal on the online portal, simply choose 'Other'. If it asks for your relationship to the vehicle, simply select 'Registered Keeper'. Create your appeal as a PDF document, and attach it to the portal under supporting evidence. In the actual appeal box, just put something along the lines of "Find attached the full appeal document".

POPLA Appeal

[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:
I, [NAME], the registered keeper (“I”/“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. I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My 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 me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me 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: 23/03/2025
Date of PCN issue: 03/04/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 07/04/2025
Elapsed time period: 15 days

As Smart Parking are unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge, and my 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 me 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 my 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 I have no liability for this charge, and I request that my appeal is upheld.

Please confirm when you have successfully submitted your POPLA appeal.

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.

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 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 me 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 Parking Charge 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 me 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...

Good day

I just received the following from POPLA

Your parking charge appeal against Smart Parking - EW.

Smart Parking - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here

Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Smart Parking - EW.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Smart Parking - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Good evening

I have downloaded the evidences and redacted

Here is the link to 



Thank you

I have edited the access

Kindly recheck now please

Thank you

Just copy and paste this wordy rebuttal into the POPLA webform as your response:

Rebuttal to Smart Parking Ltd Evidence Pack

The evidence pack provided by Smart Parking Ltd is not relevant to the key point in this appeal. The only matter the assessor needs to consider before looking at any other material is whether Smart Parking Ltd has fully complied with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability for the parking charge from the driver to the keeper.

As is the keeper's legal right, they have declined to identify the driver. Therefore, unless Smart Parking Ltd can show that their Notice to Keeper was fully compliant with PoFA, the keeper cannot be held liable.

Under paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, a Notice to Keeper must be delivered (given) within 14 days beginning with the day after the date of the alleged parking event. The following dates apply in this case:

- The date of the alleged parking event was Sunday 23 March 2025.
- The next day, from which the 14-day period starts, was Monday 24 March 2025.
- The final day of the 14-day period was Sunday 6 April 2025.

Smart Parking Ltd issued the Notice to Keeper on Thursday 3 April 2025. A notice sent by post is considered to be delivered two working days later, under paragraph 9(6) of PoFA. Counting two working days from Thursday 3 April (which excludes Saturday 5 April and Sunday 6 April), the presumed date of delivery is Monday 7 April 2025.

This means the Notice to Keeper was deemed delivered (given) 15 days after the parking event. That is one day outside the 14-day limit (relevant period) required by law. Therefore, Smart Parking Ltd cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

Smart Parking Ltd has submitted an evidence pack, but none of it deals with this key issue. They have provided photographs of signage and general terms and conditions, but that is not relevant here. If the operator wishes to hold the keeper liable, they must comply with PoFA. If they do not, they must pursue the driver. As the keeper has not been identified as the driver, and as PoFA cannot apply due to late delivery of the Notice to Keeper, the appeal must be allowed.

To summarise:

- The Notice to Keeper was delivered (given) too late to comply with PoFA.
- The keeper has not been identified as the driver.
- Therefore, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

Accordingly, Smart Parking Ltd has no lawful basis to recover the charge from the keeper, and the appeal should be upheld.

Thank you

I will do as advised