Multiple Smart Parking Ltd Fines

ParkingFineFighter29

Hi All, 

Newbie here.

I have received 7 parking fines from SP Ltd!!!

I am a gym user and entitled to 3 hours free parking but I didn't know to enter my reg - the gym told me not to and said they'd deal with any fines. 

I have contacted the gym though and now they say they are unable to help. 

I have now contacted my local MP and the landowner (SP do not own the land) and I am awaiting their response. 

I have so far appealed 5 of them - I admitted to being the driver (didn't read advice) in the first 2 and they have reduced those to £20 as I provided evidence of using the gym on the dates, so I will just have to pay them. In the other three I appealed I did not say I was the driver though and I am waiting to hear back on them (it has been over a week). 

Do you think admitting to being the driver in the first 2 I appealed will affect my appeal in the others?

How should I go about appealing the final (hopefully final) 2?

£700 is just crazy for not knowing to enter my reg and I cannot afford this.

Any advice is appreciated. 

ChirpyChicken

You don't need to pay a single penny
For those you have appealed and declined already use the single line text to popla " this operator does not have a contract to issue pcns at this site. That will get those five cancelled.

ParkingFineFighter29

Thanks for your reply. I am nervous to appeal to POPLA though as the fine could increase from £20 to £100 if it is unsuccessful 

oldernonethewiser

For clarification you don't have any fines you have invoices from a private parking company.

Big difference.

ChirpyChicken

ParkingFineFighter29 said:

Thanks for your reply. I am nervous to appeal to POPLA though as the fine could increase from £20 to £100 if it is unsuccessful 

Are you serious?
It isn't a fine
The appeal line i gave you will beat all the 5 pcns you have already appealed
Whats not to like
I suggest you have a read of this forum and stop being a willing victim.  Its so simple

ParkingFineFighter29

there are only 2 where I have admitted to being the driver. 

the other 3 I have appealed on the following grounds and I await a response from SP:


Dear Sirs, 

In response to your letter dated 29.04.25, I am willing to agree to pay the £20.00 reduced invoice for the first parking ticket, dated 27.03.25 relating to parking charge number SP51619317. However, I have now received four further parking tickets from Smart Parking Ltd to date, all of which are within the period of one month. I am only willing to pay this £20.00 fee on the condition that the remaining four parking tickets are annulled, as they are invalid. The remaining tickets are as follows:

- 03.04.25 (SP51758426)
- 09.04.25 (SP51859423)
- 10.04.25 (SP51906228)
- 11.04.25 (SP51946313)

If Smart Parking Ltd (SP) is unwilling to accept this agreement, the matter will have to go through court.

I am also willing to report SP Ltd to the Trading Standards Institute and I have already contacted an individual at BBC Radio 4, who has expressed interest in doing a File on 4 investigation into Smart Parking Ltd's practices.

I submit that the parking tickets are invalid due to the reasons provided below:

1) The PCN is non compliant with s4 p9(2) of POFA. SP have failed to include s4 POFA.

The operator cannot hold a registered keeper liable with non-POFA notices. The PNC fails to identify the driver. 

Furthermore, the PCNs arrived 11-14 days after the alleged incidents. This timeframe is unacceptable and does not allow drivers to time to respond to notices before incurring further tickets. Further incidents have therefore allegedly occurred before the keeper was made aware of the first incident. This is poor practice and violates Trading Standards. 

2) The entrance signs at regular entry are not clear about parking costs and signs within the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. 

a. BPA’s code of Practice states:

‘Signs must be conspicuous and legible, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. There must be at least one sign that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle.’

I have investigated the site and it is clear that parking charges are not clearly mentioned at the point of entry and are not clearly legible. Furthermore, Smart Parking Ltd’s terms and conditions are not legible, not least because of the sheer amount to text that must be read. The signs clearly violate BPA’s Code of Practice (19.9).

The terms displayed are no larger than 40 font size. They are displayed inadequately and the size of the wording and lettering is not clearly readable from a vehicle.

When the driver arrived at the car park it would have been impossible to read and understand the terms and conditions being imposed. It is apparent that initial signs in the car park entrance are poorly located (too high on the passenger side of the vehicle and not visible from the driver’s side). They are also invisible after dark, when all five of the incidents were incurred. The signs are also too high to be lit by car headlights. It would involve the use of a torch to see the signs at night. The driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about the terms and conditions of using the car park. 

SP Ltd have placed no information at all about parking in the entrance to the gym or within the gym either.

Furthermore, the driver was attending Total Fitness gym during the time they were parked at Green Goose car park. The gym offers three hours of free parking to its members. SP would therefore have suffered no financial loss as a result of the driver using the car park. 

I have evidence that the driver attended the gym during the timeframes indicated and was therefore entitled to free parking. I am happy to provide this evidence. 



As a result of unclear and a lack of signage, no contract was established between the driver and Smart Parking Ltd. An offer must be communicated for it to be accepted. There can be no acceptance if the driver is without knowledge of the offer. 

3) SP have not provided any evidence of landowner authority. The operator must comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they  produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.
Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges,  they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their  appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 
Without this, the court will find that the PCN was not properly given. 

4) No evidence of period parked. 
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. 

POFA 2012, schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers to the requirement to provide evidence of the period of parking. SP’s PNC simply claims that the vehicle entered at XX time and departed at XX time. SP failed to explicitly specify and provide evidence of the period of parking to which the notice relates, as required by POFA 2012. ANPR does not substitute evidence of the length of stay requirement, nor holds the keeper liable as a result. 

5) SP have failed to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice, applicable to ANPR, as they have not provided any information on SAR rights, they have not provided a privacy statement, there is no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. This is a serious breach of the BPA Code of Practice. 

Timestamps can be inserted into any image, using even the most amateur and freely available software. These images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident. Vehicles can enter and leave multiple times and it is possible that SP have included the first time a vehicle entered and the last time it left the car park.

ParkingFineFighter29

please let me know if you think this could be improved before I appeal the final 2 

thanks 

ChirpyChicken

Sorry dont bother with that 

Use this appeal for the ones you have not appealed 
"This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus Trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NTK does not comply with POFA. As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @ POPLA. Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw"

If they get declined then as per the other appeals just use this text for POPLA - No you dont need to add anything else at all, just use it on the POPLA website for each PCN/POPLA code
"This operator has no contract at this site to issue PCNS"

--
Come back to us when they are all cancelled and that really is the end of that

Coupon-mad

What dates are in your rejection letters?

You are certainly NOT paying any of them and the one-liner you were given already (in the first reply to you) kills all Smart Parking cases at POPLA (as long as you put it in by day 32).

ParkingFineFighter29

Hi thanks for your reply. the dates on the rejection letters from SP are 29th April and 30th April.yet to hear back on 5. and yet to appeal 2.

ParkingFineFighter29

Do you mind me asking please how you guys are so confident these one liners will succeed? Is it is experience? have you been through them yourself? have you worked for POPLA? I am just curious thank you for your support with this!