Author Topic: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park  (Read 1418 times)

0 Members and 132 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #15 on: »

I need to do a bit more research on this situation.

Thank you.
I had a similar thought.
Bottom line is that they’ll lose, but it would be easier for everyone - especially the original poster - if it were thanks to POPLA rather than in court.

Smart seem to be a thoroughly nasty company, and that’s in comparison to their peers who aren’t angels either.

In this particular case, which is a “slam dunk” in favour of the original poster, I’d be interested to see whether the IAS comes to the same conclusion or not, for sure.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2025, 06:11:37 pm by jfollows »

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #16 on: »
No one will pay a penny to (not so) Smart Parking. It will be interesting to see if they start using Gladstone rather than DCB Legal as their bulk litigation company of choice. Both are equally incompetent.

I certainly won’t be recommending anyone try using the IAS to appeal.

However, I’m still researching use of the CMA and the DMCC Act 2024 to start putting real pressure on these anti-consumer companies that operate close to or over the edge of lawulnesss.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #17 on: »
Quote
will be interesting to see if they start using Gladstone rather than DCB Legal
I've seen them issue a couple of Letter of Claims using BW Legal recently.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #18 on: »
It's absolutely hilarious, but the IAS would not even recognize the parking charge, probably due to smart parking switching to IAS midway

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #19 on: »
I have submitted the following FOI request to the DVLA:

Quote
To: foi@dvla.gov.uk

Subject: Freedom of Information Request – AOS Membership History for Smart Parking Ltd

Dear Sir or Madam,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request the following information:

Please confirm the exact date on which Smart Parking Ltd (Company Number SC138255) ceased to be an Accredited Operator under the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS), and the date on which it became an Accredited Operator under the International Parking Community (IPC) AOS.

If there was any period during which Smart Parking Ltd held no AOS accreditation, please confirm the dates of that gap.

This information is being requested to determine the applicable Code of Practice and appeals procedure relevant to a Parking Charge Notice issued by the company.

If any part of this request is exempt, please state the exemption relied upon under the Act.

Yours faithfully,

b789
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #20 on: »
Was able to appeal through IAS so taking my chances here. Attached my appeal letter and details and Smart Parking's response. What's ridiculous is Smart Parking claims that the appellant (me) was the driver and the keeper, absolutely no basis for them to make such statement. The IAS allows me to submit another response to smart parking's letter prior to referring straight to arbitration, not sure if it's worth pointing out in my response that they're making a false statement. Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks.




Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #21 on: »
You should rebut any incorrect statements, yes. Otherwise the assessor will probably assume they’re correct.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #22 on: »
Indeed. Draft something up to show us. Re. the driver point you could for example say something like:

The Operator reports in their evidence that the appellant was the driver. This is a false statement. At no point has the identity of the driver been disclosed to Smart Parking, either in my initial appeal, or IAS appeal. There is no obligation to disclose the driver, and I have chosen not to do so. The assessor should therefore consider my liability for the charge as the registered keeper only.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #23 on: »
Let me know if the draft makes sense and/or contains something irrelevant to the case. Big thanks for helping out with this.

In the operator’s Prima Facie Case, it is stated that "the appellant was the driver." This is a false and unsubstantiated assertion.

At no point has the identity of the driver been disclosed to the operator, either in the initial appeal or in this IAS appeal. No admission, statement, or implication has been made regarding who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event.

There is no legal obligation on the registered keeper to identify the driver, and the keeper has chosen not to do so.

Accordingly, the assessor must consider this case solely on the basis of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As explained in the original appeal, the Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory period of 14 days as required by Paragraph 9(4). The alleged parking event occurred on 27 April 2025; the Notice to Keeper was issued on 12 May 2025 and, under Paragraph 9(6), is presumed served on 14 May 2025 — 17 days after the event. This failure to comply with the statutory timeframe invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the keeper.

As a result, no keeper liability exists in this case, and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for this charge.

The operator’s claim regarding the driver’s identity is not only unsupported but irrelevant given the failure to meet the requirements of Schedule 4. I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #24 on: »
I'm just chiming in to say I have the EXACT same scenario as OP, with a Smart Parking PCN issued on the exact same day as OP and for a contravention on the exact same day as OP (different location).

I used the template in this thread to say they are outside of the 14 days and they have also upheld the fine with an almost identical response (laughably suggesting that the 14 days starts from the moment they get the owners details from the DVLA!?)

I dont mind appealing to IAS, but I really do not have the emotional resources to go to court over it.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #25 on: »
I'm just chiming in to say I have the EXACT same scenario as OP, with a Smart Parking PCN issued on the exact same day as OP and for a contravention on the exact same day as OP (different location).

I used the template in this thread to say they are outside of the 14 days and they have also upheld the fine with an almost identical response (laughably suggesting that the 14 days starts from the moment they get the owners details from the DVLA!?)

I dont mind appealing to IAS, but I really do not have the emotional resources to go to court over it.
Please open your own thread if you want some advice.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #26 on: »
I thought it might be helpful to provide some context regarding the Adjudicator's Decision, so I've attached a screenshot to this post. As expected, the appeal has been dismissed.

I wanted to ask what I should expect next. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility of court involvement, as I've never been through any court procedure before. I'm also worried about the potential costs if the case is lost - I'm not even sure what to expect in that regard.

As mentioned earlier in Smart Parking reply to my appeal, "...PC will be passed to debt recovery" so I wonder what are the possibilities of this case landing in court.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, and thank you all again for your support.



Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #27 on: »
I thought it might be helpful to provide some context regarding the Adjudicator's Decision, so I've attached a screenshot to this post. As expected, the appeal has been dismissed.

I wanted to ask what I should expect next. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility of court involvement, as I've never been through any court procedure before. I'm also worried about the potential costs if the case is lost - I'm not even sure what to expect in that regard.

As mentioned earlier in Smart Parking reply to my appeal, "...PC will be passed to debt recovery" so I wonder what are the possibilities of this case landing in court.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, and thank you all again for your support.



Thoughts are that it’s a lot of twaddle and lies, dressed up as if it were the opposite, with the intention of frightening you into paying up because you’re frightened to take it to court.

We’ve seen the twaddle before, and are familiar with it, but you’re not, fair enough.

It’s very unlikely to get to court, because if it does they’ll lose, 99% likelihood. But it’s your risk and your money.

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #28 on: »
The IAS is a kangaroo court. It is NOT independent and its adjudicators are anonymous, even though they claim to be solicitors or barristers. That is an outright lie. They have one ex-barrister who is an advisor and that is it.

The IAS decision is as expected and is not binding on you. It has no effect on anything going forwards.

The odds of you actually having to appear in court are less than 1%. Any claim issued is easily defended with our assistance and will either be struck out or discontinued.

As for debt recovery letters, you can safely ignore any of those. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

This whole process is designed to pick the ripe fruit off the gullible tree. There is no danger of a CCJ, even if it was one of the less than 1% that ever do reach that stage and you were unsuccessful. I will add why you cannot get a CCJ after this.

Any claim will would be in the small claims track where costs are fixed. If a claim is issued and the defence was unsuccessful, the judgment amount would be less than the claim amount because these firms add a fake £70 to their claims that most judges would never allow.

All you have to do now is ignore all the reminders and debt recovery letters. We don't need to know about those. When you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and we will provide a suitable response.

Here is the process to getting a CCJ:

Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.

Quote
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:

1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued

• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

2. Opportunity to Appeal

• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.

3. Debt Collection Letters

• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
No CCJ happens at this stage.

4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)

• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
No CCJ happens at this stage.

5. County Court Claim Issued

• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
No CCJ happens at this stage.

6. Court Process

• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.

7. Judgment & Payment

• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.

Conclusion

CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:

• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.

If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.

Finally, if you are worried about what "going to court" in a civil small claims case, it is not Rumpole of the Bailey. Have look at this short video of what to expect on the day, assuming a case like this ever gets to that point, which is about as likely as finding a hens tooth:

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Smart Parking PCN – No Payment – Hotel/Restaurant Car Park
« Reply #29 on: »
Elliott vs Loake, of course they're still trotting that one out  ;D