NTK PCN from Smart Parking for Bidford Big Meadow Park

hockeybeaver

Hi,
Newbie after some advice on an NTK I have received from Smart Parking regarding not paying for enough time (took 8 minutes to pay due to having to redownload the app and was 4 minutes over when leaving).  Unsurprisingly, they denied my initial appeal about there being a grace period to pay and when leaving but at least I didn't confirm who the driver was. 

As this NTK was sent 3 weeks after the Date of Contravention does this mean that I can appeal this to the IPC as being outside of the POFA 14 day time frame?  They also didn't honour the "discount" after my initial appeal was rejected after taking 22 days to reply to my appeal.  Is this another thing that can be mentioned when appealing to the IPC as this goes against their parking code of practice?

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Appeal as keeper to the IAS based on,  non compliance with Pofa2012 and no valid landowner contract 

hockeybeaver

Thanks for the reply.  Is "no valid landowner contract" just a standard thing to put in these cases and applies between myself and the landowner?

Gr1pr

Its standard in Smart Parking cases, hence why I mentioned it  ! Have a look at other recent Smart Parking cases 

The contract they dont like showing is between the landowner and Smart Parking,  not you 

Coupon-mad

The discount doesn't have to frozen and re-offered. Forget that.

Appeal to the kangaroo court of IAS with:

1. - lack of consideration period to arrive, park, walk over and read signage, download and then use the app (there is no template for IAS appeals). Go into detail on the difficulties ... but with the driver referred to in the third person of course. Quote from the Joint Code on consideration periods.

2 - POFA non compliance.

3 - No landowner authority (quote from the Joint Code clause 14). ALWAYS INCLUDE THIS POINT.

hockeybeaver

Thanks for the advice.  I'm not expecting much from the appeal judging by the posts I've read on here about their low appeal turnover rate

Coupon-mad

hockeybeaver said:

Thanks for the advice.  I'm not expecting much from the appeal judging by the posts I've read on here about their low appeal turnover rate

Same. We are with you on that!

But it's worth a go, because:

1 - Smart are new to the IPC and often offered no contest at POPLA. they don't have any experience of compiling compelling second stage appeal evidence;

2 - It wastes IAS time. Tests how useless they are. Rejection gives us evidence to show the government (if the joke decision comes back this month in time for the Public Consultation we need everyone to respond to); 

3 - You won't ever pay Smart anyway.

hockeybeaver

Before I submit my appeal to IAS, have I missed anything relating to the points you mentioned above?  Thanks.

My appeal is based on the following details:

1) The lack of consideration period to arrive, park, walk over and read signage, download and then use the app whilst the mobile signal in the area was poor is the reason it took 8 minutes to start the parking session.  The assertion from Smart Parking that no further parking session was sought is correct as why would further parking be paid for when clearly the session length shows that the car left the car park less than 5 minutes following the end of the paid for session.  This time clearly doesn't take into account leaving the parking space and exiting the car park which is the only place where the ANPR cameras have a photograph of the car.  Can Smart Parking provide the consideration periods they apply to the site in question as per "Annex B - Consideration and grace periods" of the joint code?

2) The NTK was sent well outside the 14 day window as set out in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) section 9.4(b) and 9.5.  Smart Parking has failed to provide evidence that I was the driver and have not followed the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA to establish keeper liability. Since no such transfer of liability has been legally established, I cannot be held liable for this charge as the registered keeper.

3) It is my understanding that Smart Parking does not hold a valid and current contract or agreement with the landowner at the site in question. Under the IPC Code of Practice (Section B, Clause 1.1), operators must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage and enforce parking. I request that Smart Parking produce a signed and dated landowner contract that specifically grants them authority to issue PCNs and pursue charges at this location. Without such documentation, this charge should be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

Give it a go. Get it in immediately (now) to hurry along the decision,

Doesn't matter if it loses and it will give you more ammo for the Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline!

I'm taking a close look this week and we'll walk you through it. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week. There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus.

There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on. In your case - how appalling the IAS is might feature in your reply. Maybe the IAS will give you a useless template rejection so you're best WAITING for the IAS decision in case it comes back before the Government survey deadline of 5th Sept.

hockeybeaver

Just had my reply from Smart Parking to the IAS appeal and they've stated the keeper was the driver (which they haven't proven or had admission of), claimed that the NTK was sent on the 9th July (still outside 14 days) when the NTK itself says the date issued is the 11th July.  Amazing how they can just lie like this!

What's the best way to go back to them?  Is it to upload the NTK showing the date and asking for proof of driver?

***************

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 22/08/2025 11:11:25.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 09/07/2025.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/07/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 22/06/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

We would like to clarify that this Parking Charge was issued for insufficient paid time. The contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an underpayment for the vehicle registration mark. As there was an underpayment for the VRM x, the PC was issued correctly for insufficient paid time. We can further confirm the Appellant paid for a total amount of 180 minutes, however the vehicle was parked on site for a total of 192 minutes, therefore overstaying a total of 12 minutes. It is the responsibility of the Appellant as a motorist to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration mark and for the duration of their stay when using this car park.

Smart Parking Limited would like to clarify that as per the BPA the Registered Keeper details can be requested up to 28 days after the date of contravention, to which we can confirm these were requested within the 28-day time frame. Our target is to send the parking charge to the keeper of the vehicle no more than 14 days after receiving the keeper data from the DVLA. We can confirm the keeper details were provided by the DVLA on 08/07/2025 and the PC was promptly issued on 09/07/2025. Smart Parking Limited have no hold over the postal service.

All signs on site are compliant with the International Parking Community (IPC) and The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice June 2024. Signs and Surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers. Clause 3.1.1, of the single code states that “An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, unless: subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited”. It also states in clause 3.1.3 a) that signs must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. There are several signs situated around the car park that advise of the tariff, terms and conditions, we can confirm all signage on site is IPC approved, and compliant with The Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Please be aware all signs are set to a standardized height, regulations and written in clear and intelligible language. There is no ambiguous language or jargon on any of the Smart Parking signs at this site.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Within the single Code of Practice, it states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.” We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the driver remained on site for 192 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice.

We would like to make the assessor aware that the grace period given on site is 10 minutes overall. Within the single Code of Practice, it states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.” Whilst we acknowledge this, we would like to confirm that we offer the 10 minutes as an overall duration as all motorists have the opportunity to purchase a ticket at any point throughout their duration. As the site in question is monitored by ANPR cameras, the system is able to assign a payment according to the duration in which a motorist has remained on site, this includes back dating a payment if a motorist was to purchase a ticket at the end of their stay. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the motorist remained on site for 192 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice.

hockeybeaver

Oh and they posted a PDF which supposedly contains the signage from site which doesn't even show the correct time limit (£3 for 2 hours instead of it being £3 for 3 hours) or Smart Parking as being the managers of the car park.  Were they previously known as Local Parking Security Ltd or is this a different company altogether?