Smart Parking NTK appeal rejected – no POFA keeper liability, should I fight it?

no_my_name_69

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get some advice from people who have dealt with private parking charges before or who know a bit about the legal side of this. I'm based in England where it all happened.

I received a Notice to Keeper from Smart Parking Ltd after an alleged overstay in a retail car park. According to them, the vehicle overstayed the maximum free parking time. The alleged contravention happened on 31 January 2026. The Notice to Keeper was issued on 16 February and I actually received it on 20 February.

From what I’ve read, if a parking company wants to rely on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to Keeper is supposed to be delivered within 14 days of the alleged contravention. In this case it looks like it was issued 16 days after the event and received even later.

I appealed as the registered keeper and didn’t say who the driver was. In the appeal I asked them to explain the allegation properly and provide evidence. They’ve now rejected the appeal and say the charge was issued correctly because the car park allows a maximum stay of 180 minutes and the vehicle was apparently there for 194 minutes.

What confused me is that in their response they specifically say that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (keeper liability) does not apply at this location. Because I didn’t identify the driver, they say they are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was the driver and they even cite Elliott v Loake as supporting case law.

From what I understand, if they’re not relying on POFA then they can’t automatically hold the keeper liable and would have to prove who the driver actually was. I deliberately didn’t name the driver for that reason.

They’ve now said my only options are to pay (they’ve extended the discount until the end of March) or appeal to the IAS, but they warn that if I go to the IAS and lose I’ll have to pay the full amount.

I’m trying to decide whether it’s worth fighting this further or if I should just pay the discounted amount and move on. I’ve read mixed things about the IAS and also about whether Smart Parking actually take people to court.

Has anyone here dealt with Smart Parking in a situation like this, or knows how strong their argument about “inferring the driver” actually is?

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Jame4ters

IAS are not a real appeals authority and even if you lost there nothing changes. They are a waste of time.

You definitely don’t pay any amount.

There are a number of similar Smart Parking threads which will help as will the “Newbies” thread at the top of this forum

cooldude255220

In my view, according to the IAS's latest report, of the 34,383 appeals received (during the period from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025), 7,888 were conceded by the operator before adjudication. That is very nearly 23% of them! Not quite as good as a coin flip, but I would argue it's a waste for people not to take advantage of those odds.

Plus, it costs the operators money if they win or lose, but not if they withdraw.

Plus, from a selfish point of view, I want to see if the below appeal fairs any better with them.

[where it says appendix, grab the relevant document from here and upload it]

[you would need to renumber the appendices as not all of the ones in the Ocean example apply here]

[Remove paragraph 4 if the wording of the Notice does not say that].

Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 [Appendix 1] is a relevant issue in this case because the operator has issued the PCN to me on the basis that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

There is no allegation within the PCN that I was driving the vehicle in question.

The form and substance of the Notice is clearly designed to allow the operator to avail themselves of the of the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the Act.

The Operator concedes that they “do not know the drivers name or current postal address”.

This appeal must therefore be decided with reference to the basis on which the PCN has - in fact - been issued. That basis is that I am the keeper, not the driver. 

Whether the operator may, could, or might at some future point pursue me on the basis that I am alleged to be the driver is irrelevant to this appeal. 

The operator may only recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle where Schedule 4 of POFA applies.

A creditor only has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 where the criteria in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 are met.

Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met.

Paragraph 6(1)(b) requires that a Notice to Keeper is given accordance with paragraph 9.

Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 of POFA requires that, where the notice is sent by post, it is DELIVERED (not just sent) within the relevant period.

Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of POFA provides that the relevant period for delivery is 14 days, beginning with the day after the parking event.

The alleged parking event was 31/01/2026. Taking 01/02/2026 as the first day, that means 14/02/2026 is the 14th day - i.e. the last day on which the Notice could be DELIVERED and meet the requirement of Paragraph 9(4).

The notice is dated 16/02/2026. This is, in any event, outside the 14 day period. The notice is deemed to be delivered (unless the contrary is proved) on the second working day after posting.

The 1st working day after posting is 17/02/2026. The second working day after posting is 18/02/2026.

It is therefore deemed to have been delivered on 18/02/2026, which is after 14/02/2026 and therefore outside the permitted 14-day period for DELIVERY.

The Notice to Keeper was therefore not DELIVERED NOR DEEMED DELIVERED in accordance with paragraph 9(4) of POFA and therefore the right of recovery under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA does not apply.

The Notice is in breach of Clause 8.1.1 of the Single Sector Code of Practice [Appendix 7] because the Notice, in its design and/or language, states that the keeper is liable where they cannot be held liable. The keeper cannot be held liable because the Notice is not compliant with POFA.

In so far as it is relevant because either the Operator or the IAS assert otherwise, there is no legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver.

On 25th April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan gave judgment in Vehicle Control Services v Ian Mark Edward [Appendix 8]. This was a case in which an Operator brought proceedings to recover a parking charge from the keeper of a vehicle, circumstances which are manifestly relevant to this appeal. 

His Honour held (at paragraph 34) that “the evidential effect of establishing that the defendant was the relevant keeper, does not produce any inference, rebuttable or otherwise, that the defendant was driving on this particular occasion”. He continued: “Therefore, there is no material inference for the defendant to rebit. As there was nothing to rebut, it does not seem to me to be right to draw an adverse inference from his failure to engage in seeking to rebut it”. 

Furthermore, he gave 3 other reasons to justify his decision (at paragraph 35):

That that finding is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 [of POFA]

That his decision “preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty [to do so]”

That “simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability that they were driving on this occasion”. 

VCS v Edward clearly demonstrates that there is no legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. 

However, to head off either the Operator or adjudicator attempting to cite Elliot v Loake [Appendix 9] as precedent otherwise, that case is clearly distinguishable on the facts from the present appeal. In that case:

Forensic evidence showed that the defendant had lied to the police

The defendant stated that he had given no one else permission to drive the vehicle 

Griffiths LJ held that the Magistrates regarded “the evidence he was the owner of the car, COUPLED WITH THE UNTRUTH WHICH THEY FOUND THAT THIS DRIVER TOLD TO THE POLICE OFFICER, as sufficient evidence to satisfy them that he was in fact the driver of the car on the evening in question”.

Elliott v Loake is a case which turned on its own facts. The facts of that case are materially different to the facts in this matter, and cannot be relied upon as authority for the proposition that there is a legal presumption that a keeper is the driver.

Coupon-mad

Worth a go. No paying anyway.

no_my_name_69

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81923989#Comment_81923989

Thank you!

I had ignored their rejection on the ground that the only way they'd take the registered keeper (me!) to court would be via PoFA. However, as you can see in their reply below, they confirmed it does not apply to this location, hence they indirectly admitted their only way they can take me to court does not apply (I think I'm right but mot 100% sure!). So i thought I'd ignore anything that is not court papers.

I have now received an email from a debt collector. Do i need to reply to these guys?



For some context, this is the PCN:

https://postimg.cc/kRx3pVp2

This is my appeal:

https://postimg.cc/B8yrZcWG

Their rejection:

https://postimg.cc/sGPqJkMC

Coupon-mad

Elliott v Loake… LOL! Search the forum.

😁