Smart Parking - Belgrave Road Margate - Late NtK (PoFA 14-day failure)

Le_Kirk

Apart from @cooldude255220, we would have to search the forum, same as you! Click on the user name and look for threads or comments and search through them OR use the search function making sure to change "best match" to "newest". OR you could send a PM to him using the envelope symbol top right.

YOUWEE

Hello everyone, A quick update on what has happened since my last post.

Following Smart Parking's initial rejection, I proceeded to lodge the appeal on the IAS portal as the Registered Keeper using @cooldude255220 template available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/8fwjyuy0blbzddz2lao60/AHD-AHp8apPnI6VayLWDww4?rlkey=gylckx1uh403la7y848wqi8js&st=vtxr1ffq&e=3&dl=0

Smart Parking has now uploaded their Prima Facie case, and their evidence pack has actually given us some fantastic ammunition. They are trying to claim strict PoFA compliance, confirming they issued/sent the NtK on Friday 31/07/2026 for the event on 20/07/2026.More importantly, they revealed their exact ANPR and payment timestamps:

• ANPR Arrival: 11:25
• RingGo Payment Started: 11:41 (Purchased 240 mins, running until 15:41)
• ANPR Exit: 15:40

They are claiming a 14-minute overstay based purely on total ANPR time (254 mins total stay vs 240 mins paid). However, their own data proves the vehicle actually exited a minute before the paid RingGo session expired. The entire issue is just the 16-minute window at the very beginning between driving in and the app payment going through. I am now at the stage where I need to submit my final response to the operator's evidence on the IAS portal.

I have drafted a robust rebuttal focusing heavily on two points: the clear PoFA late-delivery failure (Deemed Delivery on Tuesday 04/08 is Day 15) and the fact that the 16 minutes at the start is a perfectly compliant IPC Consideration Period. Could you please review my drafted response below before I submit it to the portal?

My Drafted Response to Operator Evidence:

I maintain my appeal and dispute that the Operator has established keeper liability or otherwise established that the charge is lawfully recoverable from me as Registered Keeper.

1. Failure to establish compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Operator's Prima Facie Case states:

"The Notice to Keeper was sent on 31/07/2026."

The Notice to Keeper itself is dated 31/07/2026 and expressly states that it is issued pursuant to paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The alleged parking event occurred on 20/07/2026. Under paragraph 9(4) and 9(5) of Schedule 4, where the Operator seeks to rely upon keeper liability following an ANPR event and no Notice to Driver was given at the time, the Notice to Keeper must be given within the relevant 14-day period beginning with the day after the specified period of parking ended.

In this case, that period ended on 03/08/2026.

The Operator states that the Notice to Keeper was sent on Friday 31/07/2026. Its own Notice to Keeper states that the date on which it is given is presumed to be the second working day after the date of issue.

Accordingly, on the Operator's own stated date of issue, the presumed date of giving is Tuesday 04/08/2026, which is outside the statutory 14-day period ending on 03/08/2026.

The Operator has provided no evidence establishing an earlier date of actual delivery which would bring the Notice within the statutory period.

I therefore submit that the Operator has failed to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 and cannot rely upon Schedule 4 to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to me as Registered Keeper.

2. The Operator's evidence shows that the paid period itself had not expired when the vehicle exited

The Operator's payment evidence records a RingGo payment for the vehicle commencing at 11:41:00 and ending at 15:41:00, for 240 minutes.

The Operator's ANPR evidence records the vehicle exiting at approximately 15:40, specifically 15:40:06 in the ANPR record.

Therefore, the vehicle exited approximately 54 seconds before the purchased 240-minute period expired.

I acknowledge that the ANPR entry time was approximately 11:25 and that payment was subsequently made at approximately 11:41. I do not dispute the timestamps shown in the Operator's evidence.

However, the Operator's evidence therefore establishes that the issue is confined to the approximately 15-minute period between the ANPR arrival and the commencement of the RingGo payment. It does not establish that the vehicle remained beyond the expiry of the purchased parking period. 

Under Section 13.1 of the IPC Code of Practice, operators must allow motorists a reasonable Consideration Period to enter the car park, find a bay, read the terms on the signage, and complete a payment transaction. A period of 16 minutes to safely park and execute a mobile app payment via RingGo is entirely reasonable and fully compliant with the Code of Practice. It does not constitute a breach of contract.  

3. The Operator must establish the contractual basis for the alleged breach

The Operator's own evidence states that the charge was issued for insufficient paid time.

The signage supplied by the Operator includes the wording: "Purchase a parking ticket for the duration of your stay from the payment machine."

I therefore put the Operator to strict proof of the precise contractual term relied upon to establish that the approximately 15-minute period between ANPR arrival and commencement of payment constituted a breach giving rise to a £100 Parking Charge.

In particular, the Operator should establish the applicable terms and conditions in force on 20/07/2026, how those terms were prominently communicated to motorists entering the car park, and how the alleged breach is calculated.

4. Keeper liability

I have not identified the driver and I do not admit to being the driver.

The Operator is therefore required to establish a lawful basis for pursuing me as Registered Keeper. Its own evidence does not establish that the Notice to Keeper was given within the statutory period required by Schedule 4.

Conclusion

The Operator's own evidence states that the Notice to Keeper was issued/sent on 31/07/2026 following a parking event on 20/07/2026. Applying the statutory postal timing provisions relied upon by the Operator itself, the Notice is presumed to have been given on 04/08/2026, after the 14-day period ending on 03/08/2026.

The Operator has therefore failed to establish the statutory conditions necessary to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Separately, the Operator's payment records show that the purchased 240-minute period ran until 15:41, while the vehicle exited at approximately 15:40. The remaining alleged breach concerns only the period before payment commenced, for which the Operator must establish the precise contractual basis and applicable terms.

I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Does this look solid to submit to the IAS to close out this stage, or should I adjust any of the wording based on what usually works best at this point? Thanks as always!

Coupon-mad

I'd add mention of the CMA Open Letter to the parking industry and the letter they also sent to the two Trade Bodies, that specifically highlights that a consideration period is not a fixed time or a maximum and that the industry's own PPSCoP isn't the law.

Read all the CMA statements first.

This was on BBC News and on MSE itself:

MSE article: July 2026

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a major crackdown on the UK private parking industry, issuing an open warning over unfair appeals, and advising stricter government oversight CMA takes action on private parking practices.