Parking charge - incorrect payment at car park?

Senorb

I am writing to formally appeal against a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Smart Parking to myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was **not** the driver at the time of the alleged incident.

I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the following grounds:

---

### **1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)**

Under **Schedule 4, Paragraph 4** of the **Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**, a private parking operator such as Smart Parking can only pursue the **registered keeper** for payment if specific conditions are strictly met as outlined in **paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12**.

The NTK sent to me is **not compliant with POFA**, for the following reasons:

* **Failure to serve the notice within the mandatory 14-day period**:

  According to **Paragraph 9(4)(b)**, the NTK must be delivered to the keeper’s address **within 14 days** beginning with the day after the alleged parking event. The NTK from Smart Parking arrived on **Monday the 7th**, clearly outside of this statutory timeframe. Even if posted on the same day as the 'issue date' on the letter (which is unlikely due to Smart Parking’s use of bulk third-party mail services such as iMail or Whistl), the delay means the notice was not **served** in time to establish keeper liability.

* **Lack of mandatory wording required by POFA**:

  Smart Parking’s NTK does **not reference the POFA 2012** nor state that they are pursuing the keeper under POFA’s provisions. This omission is notable and significant. This clearly indicates that Smart Parking is **not relying on POFA** to establish keeper liability, meaning there is **no legal basis** to pursue the keeper.

---

### **2) The NTK fails to specify the required “facts” and the alleged unpaid charges**

In accordance with **Paragraph 9(2)(b)** of Schedule 4 of POFA, the NTK must:

> "Inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose... and the other facts that made those charges payable."

Smart Parking’s NTK instead states vague and non-specific reasons, such as either:

* Not purchasing the correct parking time, **or**

* Remaining on site longer than permitted.

This is legally insufficient and lacks any precise factual description of the alleged breach or the specific parking terms that were contravened. Additionally, in their rejection of my initial appeal, Smart Parking introduced a different explanation (“insufficient time was paid for”), which was **not stated** in the original NTK. This only highlights the NTK’s failure to provide the actual factual basis for the charge at the appropriate time.

Should Smart Parking attempt to introduce **new reasoning** for the charge at a later stage (such as a mismatch in VRN input, etc.), I request that POPLA reject such late claims and note that it would further demonstrate how the original NTK failed to comply with the statutory requirements.

---

### **3) No evidence of the driver – keeper liability does not apply**

As I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident, and as Smart Parking have failed to meet the requirements of POFA to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, there is **no lawful basis** to hold me liable for this charge.

I therefore request that this charge be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

Where's the (potentially) killer point about no landowner authority?

Senorb

Hi, thank you for your message, yes I have the other point ready too, I will add it along with the above point in my appeal

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.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out key operational details—such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions, or any site occupier's 'right of veto' or cancellation rights, along with all enforcement times/dates and the full boundary of the site—are vital to establish what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot simply be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to install signage and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent has legal standing or the authority, on the material date, to form contracts with drivers or to enforce parking charges in court in their own name. Legal action regarding land use is generally a matter for the landowner only.

Witness statements are not sufficient evidence of landowner authority. They are often generic, unsigned or pre-signed documents that do not identify the specific site, case, or terms of operation. While such statements might be accepted by the IAS in some cases, in this case, I argue they are not detailed enough to define the nature of services provided by each party in the agreement.

They also fail to clarify essential information such as:

* enforcement periods and times

* exemptions and grace periods (which may exceed IPC minimums)

* site boundaries and designated enforcement zones

* and critically, what restrictions the landowner has authorised to give rise to a charge

Additionally, evidence must be provided to show:

* when the parking contract began

* the duration or renewal terms of the agreement

* the names, job titles, and employing companies of the signatories

* whether those individuals are genuinely authorised to bind the landowner in a legal agreement

The IPC Code of Practice sets out mandatory requirements. I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance with Section A, Clause 2 of the IPC Code, which states:

> **"Operators must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage and enforce parking on the land. The authorisation must include a full description of the land, any conditions or restrictions (including hours of operation and vehicle types), and details of the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved."**

---

Coupon-mad

Good. Give it a go. No paying anyway.

1505grandad

"Should Smart Parking attempt to introduce **new reasoning** for the charge at a later stage (such as a mismatch in VRN input, etc.), I request that POPLA reject such late claims and note that it would further demonstrate how the original NTK failed to comply with the statutory requirements."

?

Senorb

Hi Thank you for your message, do you advise that I remove this part from the appeal?

Gr1pr

Senorb said:

Hi Thank you for your message, do you advise that I remove this part from the appeal?

No, they are telling you that the word POPLA is incorrect,  because Popla are not involved,  the IAS is involved  !

Think about it 

Senorb

Ah yes I see, my apologies I will fix it, thank you!

Senorb

Hi there please see response attached

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it and let it go to a joke 'decision'! Then show us that IAS decision.

You won't be paying anyway.