Smart Parking Spring St Wilmslow

BoilMan123

Hi

I have been advised to read the NEWBIE threads which I have done now but still would appreciate any advice on this.

I moved house early last year to live with my partner whilst renting out my house. I also changed my name, this was all updated with DVLA but I received a PCN to my old name at my old address back in July 2025. The tenant did not share these letters with me and by the looks of things has lost the NTK.

I erroneously wrote to the Debt Recovery in October to advise them of this which had no reply and did the same in January this year which has resulted in now receiving a Notice to Driver to my current address with the correct name.

The PCN is with Smart Parking and reading the forums this looks to follow the POFA hybrid one which makes me think a one liner with them won't work?

They have said I can appeal to IAS in Smart Parkings refusal of my appeal which I understand is a very unlikely win. However I have noticed on their NTD they have sent an image of my car in the parking bay and then an image of it not there but by their own timestamp they are 2 seconds apart, so can this be an easy win or is this just an error on their NTD?

I was there longer than the time stated and probably outside the grace period however this car park was unclear. It is partly operated by both the Council and partly Smart Parking. I did pay for the parking session but I paid this to the Council as I thought I was in the bay for the Council spaces. Ive gone back to take images of the car park and I'm not sure it helps my case as the signage is very large above me in black and yellow but I do think it is confusing and I have not purposely tried to not pay.

I guess the next step is IAS but just wondering if there are any easy wins in this?

Best wishes

Gr1pr

Dont bother with the IAS , just ignore them for now

Come back to this thread if you receive a Letter of Claim or a Money Claim

Coupon-mad

I have noticed on their NTD they have sent an image of my car in the parking bay and then an image of it not there but by their own timestamp they are 2 seconds apart, so can this be an easy win or is this just an error on their NTD?

Log in and check the times of all their photos. For how many minutes have they actually captured your car stationary?

What are you accused of?

Please show us both sides of this new 'Notice to Driver' that they sent.

BoilMan123

Hi thanks for responding.

I have logged on and can see a few more images. The image they showed actually wasn't of the same bay like I thought but of the signage nearby not taken very well. There are 5 images on their website for their evidence which shows the car stationary without anyone inside for a total of 15 seconds.

It says on the NTD that the issue is "parked without displaying a valid permit".

I have attached both the evidence and NTD below.

Thanks again.

kryten3000

Typical predatory "snap and dash" - attendant takes a few pictures then runs away to issue the PCN.

Nothing is placed on the vehicle so the driver has no clue that anything is wrong.

15 seconds is not enough time for a breach of contract - the driver might have been reading the signs somewhere else in the car park.

Smart send cases to DCB Legal or QDR Solicitors who will issue claims but these never reach a hearing stage, all are discontinued. Smart/DCB/QDR hope you will panic and pay or ignore (leading to a Default Judgment). When a defence is entered the give up because it's "too hard" to collect. An abuse of the court system.

Coupon-mad

@kryten3000 said:

Typical predatory "snap and dash" - attendant takes a few pictures then runs away to issue the PCN.

Nothing is placed on the vehicle so the driver has no clue that anything is wrong.

15 seconds is not enough time for a breach of contract - the driver might have been reading the signs somewhere else in the car park. 

I agree, this is appalling and would give the driver no time to read any sign let alone be fetching a permit from the residence or business premises they are visiting.

In most cases (visiting drivers) it is impossible to arrive with a permit.

There are 5 images on their website for their evidence which shows the car stationary without anyone inside for a total of 15 seconds.

FIFTEEN SECONDS! 🤨

I would actually try the IAS on this one, based on the complete lack of mandatory observation or consideration period.

Put in a short & sweet appeal. I guess you've been outed as driver already?

Gr1pr

Its also predatory behaviour

BoilMan123

I guess you've been outed as driver already?

I told them that I had paid for a ticket on the ring go app so in essence yes. They came back to clarify the following.

"We note the comments made within your appeal however, we cannot rescind the Parking Charge on this basis. We would like to make you aware that PaybyPhone is not a valid method of payment for the car park in question and we believe that you have paid for the council operated area of the car park, not the area monitored by Smart Parking, the area in which you were observed parking."

I note that the arguments above are that I could have been looking at signage elsewhere or currently purchasing a ticket but have I shot myself in the foot by telling them I already purchased a ticket on the Ring Go App so they can always say, if it ever arrived at court, that I wasn't looking at signage/trying to buy a ticket as I have already said I paid the wrong operator?

On the appeal to IAS, it looks like there aren't templates for this as its a kangaroo court and its 5% success rate, is that correct before I begin?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes but if you already admitted parking & staying and paying on the wrong app then you've admitted that your car was there far longer than the 15 seconds they had.

For that reason ignore them and don't try the IAS. Sadly the winning point has gone but that won't matter when DCB Legal file the claim later this year because they always discontinue before hearings.

No worries. You'll pay nothing.