Issued with smart parking pcn and expecting many more

Coupon-mad

Olfa2383 said:

                

Is that the only page they showed?

That's just schedule 1 of a 'services' agreement and there's nothing there to state that Smart Parking can make contracts in their name and sue in the courts. They've redacted a whole paragraph so there's literally nothing to  confirm that they have any power to sue, let alone what the rules even are, and/or any exemptions, times of operation or even the £sum of the PCN. It's too heavily redacted and a 'schedule' is merely an appendix of a main agreement document. Where's that?

Did you admit to driving in the first appeal stage of this particular one?

Is the PCN number the one that begins 'SP'?

Olfa2383

Hey thanks for your replies , i have only used the template provided here and the popla one liner so just appealed as registered keeper
The pcn number does start in sp
This is their evidence pack .

Coupon-mad

Right, so I've already advised you how to respond to POPLA about that 'schedule' (is it actually signed by Mercure as well)?

...but with your subsequent POPLA appeals, do not use the one-liner. I wouldn't bother with POPLA and would just ignore Smart re the other PCNs. But download their evidence pack and keep it in case they break the habit of a lifetime and try court one day.

Olfa2383

Well i now have about 18 popla appeals in progress  so i feel like these guys kinda want to chase it.   thanks for your paragraph about the 'schedule' i will just paste that in the comment box just adding theres no expiry date on their document... respect @Coupon-mad 🙏 

Coupon-mad

Olfa2383 said:

Well i now have about 18 popla appeals in progress  so i feel like these guys kinda want to chase it.   thanks for your paragraph about the 'schedule' i will just paste that in the comment box just adding theres no expiry date on their document... respect @Coupon-mad 🙏 

Also rip it apart by quoting this:

Paragraph 14.1 of The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements, and the operator is required to provide strict proof of complete compliance:

‘Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.’

Olfa2383

Hi @ChirpyChicken sorry just seen this now , i have drafted this (used ai to polish ) and after having  a look into the POFA requirements and Requirements for landowner authority , i am quite confident lol

I have reviewed the evidence provided by Smart Parking Ltd in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice. I would like to make the following comments:

1. The document submitted by Smart Parking Ltd is merely Schedule 1 of a Services Agreement. On its own, it does not demonstrate that the operator has the legal authority to enter into contracts with motorists or pursue legal action through the courts. A paragraph has been redacted, and the document does not mention enforcement rights, operating conditions, PCN amounts, times of operation, or permitted exemptions. Landowner authority cannot be established due to this lack of clarity. Without the full main contract, it is impossible to verify what powers Smart Parking Ltd holds, if any. A schedule is merely an appendix to a main agreement, which has not been provided.

2. The document indicates a “Go Live Date” of ?/01/2023 and states the contract continues until 31/03/2024, but it does not clarify whether the agreement was valid on the contravention date (09/04/2025). This has not been evidenced.

3. Paragraph 14.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires operators to provide proof of authority covering the landowner’s identity, boundary maps, applicable byelaws, permission granted (including duration), full parking terms and conditions, charge issuance process, responsibility for signage consents, obligations under the Code, and the appeals process. This has not been evidenced.

4. Smart Parking Ltd has not identified the driver, instead seeking to transfer liability to the registered owner. However, they have not demonstrated full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Without meeting all Schedule 4 conditions of POFA, the keeper cannot be held liable. This has not been evidenced. 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that :

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been

delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued on 23/04/2025, with a presumed delivery date of 2 working days as stated in 25/04/2025. This is 16 days after the contravention on 09/04/2025, exceeding the 14-day limit for notice delivery under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 POFA. This delay is fatal to POFA compliance and voids keeper liability, regardless of other factors.

6. Additionally, the NTK is arguably vague on specifying the exact period of parking and the circumstances that gave rise to the charge, contrary to the requirements in paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(c).

For these reasons, the evidence submitted is incomplete, lacks transparency, and fails to demonstrate legal authority or POFA compliance necessary to enforce the charge.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct Smart Parking Ltd to cancel the charge.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

Olfa2383

Indeed that was good enough lol , thanks for everyone's contribution especially @Coupon-mad for teaching me how to fight these thieves . Is there any point in me posting the outcome ? 

Coupon-mad

Yes please post the decision (ADD TEN PARAGRAPH BREAKS TO BREAK UP THE WALL OF TEXT) in the 'POPLA DECISIONS' thread at the top of the forum. With a link to this thread & stating which PPC you beat.