Author Topic: Smart Parking PCN - Parked in excess of the permitted free time (ANPR) - Tottenham Hale Retail Park (Read 153 times)

unfortunatemagpie · « **on:** March 14, 2025, 04:46:19 pm »

I only just found out about this forum just now while doing a Google search and reading some Reddit posts about appealing a parking charge - y'all are legends! I personally view that some of the PCNs given are just predatory, especially when the cost of living has been rising as of late...

Anyways, my story. I'm the registered keeper of the car and just received a notice of a PCN today 14 March. The driver was in the retail park and having discussions with staff at a local Halfords about repairs to a car and allegedly had the car parked 18 minutes in excess of the permitted free parking time of 3 hours in the private car park. I don't suppose Smart Parking, or any of these companies, would waive off a PCN based on compassionate grounds. However interestingly, I read that in paragraph 9(5) that the notice to the keeper must be sent within 14 days from the day after the period of parking has ended - the last day of that period should be 12 March. But in paragraph 9(6) it does say that a letter is presumed to be delivered two working days after it is posted. If we assume it's from the date of issue, 10 March, that would mean it's presumed to be delivered on 12 March, luckily just on the last day of the period for them. I received the letter today, but unfortunately there's no post markings on the envelope to show the date it's been delivered, unless Royal Mail helps out somehow. Or is there another way I can appeal this with the experts here?

Sorry, Imgur didn't work for me, but the pictures of the PCN are here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/7Hgjkgd

G6PRK · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2025, 08:09:29 pm »

You're absolutely right, the vast majority, if not all PCNs are predatory. If you are prepared to fight these people all the way, and follow the advice on this forum, it is highly unlikely you will ever pay a penny.

The first thing you should do is complain to the relevant retailer(s) and ask them to get the charge cancelled if you haven't already done so. Stress (politely) that you don't expect to be harassed by unregulated and predatory parking companies as a result of being a customer in their establishments.

Next, appeal as instructed in the NtK. You could wait til nearer the deadline if complaining to retailer(s).

Make sure that the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

You're absolutely right to question the date of receipt - and this will be one of your points of appeal at POPLA when it likely progresses to that stage. The private parking sector single Code of Practice requires operators to provide proof of postage in situations such as this.

Use the following as your appeal (with regards to b789). No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote

PCN No: [PCN number]
Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

b789 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2025, 09:48:29 pm »

On rejection of the appeal, you can require (not so) Smart Parking to provide proof of posting to show the date the NtK entered the postal system. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2 requires that operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

They won't be able to but may try to fob the assessor off with a copy of a hybrid mail receipt from their consolidator which does not evidence the date it was entered into the postal system but will likely evidence that their consolidator does not use first class mail which is supposed to guarantee delivery in 1-2 days, hence the two working day deadline for delivery, but they will show 2-3 day delivery which means that, even of the receipt was proof of the letter entering the postal system, it cannot be deemed to have been delivered after two working days but three working days.

It is also very unlikely Smart can provide evidence that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to issue PCNs t the location. All good stuff for the POPLA appeal.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Smart Parking PCN - Parked in excess of the permitted free time (ANPR) - Tottenham Hale Retail Park (Read 153 times)

unfortunatemagpie

Smart Parking PCN - Parked in excess of the permitted free time (ANPR) - Tottenham Hale Retail Park

G6PRK

Re: Smart Parking PCN - Parked in excess of the permitted free time (ANPR) - Tottenham Hale Retail Park

b789

Re: Smart Parking PCN - Parked in excess of the permitted free time (ANPR) - Tottenham Hale Retail Park