Smart Parking, IAS and DRP

simplestarts25

Hi all!

I apologise if I’m asking something that is already stated elsewhere, but I have looked and can’t quite what I’m looking for…

I received a NTK from Smart Parking for a contravention on the 23/04/2026, NTK issued on 08/95/2026. I appealed as the registered keeper, not naming the driver, citing landowner authority and no evidence of the actual period parked (the NTK showed the car leaving and exiting, but was not time stamped). The appeal was rejected stating that insufficient parking had been paid for the duration parked, and that was the end of the internal appeals process.

After reading a few other success stories, I decided to appeal with the IAS. This is the summary of my appeal:

The Appellant is appealing against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Smart Parking Ltd solely in their capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle, rather than the driver. Because the Operator explicitly concedes that they do not know the identity of the driver, they are relying entirely on the keeper liability provisions set out under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). However, the Operator has failed to meet the strict statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

To successfully invoke keeper liability, POFA dictates that a notice sent by post must be delivered to the keeper within a mandatory 14-day window beginning the day after the parking event. In this instance, the alleged parking event occurred on 23/04/2026, which established a statutory delivery deadline of 07/05/2026. The Operator's notice was not issued until 08/05/2026 and was legally deemed delivered on 12/05/2026, placing it significantly outside the permitted timeframe. Consequently, the right of recovery from the keeper does not apply. Furthermore, by designing the PCN to imply keeper liability where none exists in law, the Operator is in breach of Clause 8.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice.

In addition to this fatal procedural defect, the Operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged breach. While the Operator asserts that the vehicle overstayed a paid 60-minute parking session by 23 minutes, the PCN features only photographs of the vehicle without any visible timestamps documenting entry, exit, or the actual duration of the stay. No proof of the parking transaction or session commencement has been provided. The Operator is therefore put to strict proof regarding their ANPR records, system calibration logs, and the application of mandatory grace periods.

The appeal also addresses the fact that the Operator has provided no evidence identifying the driver and cannot simply invite an inference that the keeper was driving. Under established case law, there is no legal presumption that a vehicle's registered keeper was the driver on any given occasion. This was firmly upheld in Vehicle Control Services v Ian Mark Edward (2023), which determined that establishing a defendant as the keeper creates no inference of driving, and that a keeper is under no legal duty to provide such information. The alternative case of Elliott v Loake is entirely distinguishable here, as it relied on specific forensic evidence and dishonesty that do not apply to this matter.

Finally, the Operator has failed to demonstrate that they possess the necessary landowner authority or contractual standing to issue and pursue charges at this specific location. The Operator is put to strict proof to produce a contemporaneous, unredacted contract proving their authorization.

For the comprehensive breakdown of these arguments, including detailed statutory calculations, evidentiary demands, and full case law citations, please refer to Appendix 1 for the full appeal.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the appeal was dismissed and this is the IAS judgement:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator’s role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator maintains that the Appellant exceeded their paid parking session.
The Appellant states that the NTK is out of time. The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that she was not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed. The Appellant should note that whilst she makes reference to the VCS case, county court judgments are not binding here.
The Appellant takes issue with the contents of the NTK. I am restricted to the legal issues as to whether the charge was properly issued, as such this issue is beyond my remit. They may however wish to raise this with the Operator directly through their complaint's procedure.
The Operator provides evidence that only 1 hour of parking was purchased, between 10:45 and 11:45, yet the Appellant's vehicle was on site between 10:39 and 12:02. The Appellant overstayed between 11:45 and 12:02. This exceeds the 10 minute grace period applied to motorists. The consideration period (the time between 10:39 and 10:45) does not form part of the overstay. The Appellant puts the Operator to proof as to the calibration and functionality of ANPR. Whilst I will accept the premise the technology is not infallible; it is very persuasive. In order to satisfy me there was a failure on this occasion, the Appellant must provide some evidence beyond their mere assertion. To succeed the evidence would need to be similarly persuasive. In the absence of such clear evidence, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis.
The Operator need provide no information. Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator.
Whilst the Appellant puts the Operator to proof that the signage on site was sufficient, she will appreciate that the evidence not only is sufficient but corroborated by the fact that a payment was made.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

I also contacted the landowner and they refused to dismiss the charge stating that Smart Parking told them it was valid

Just over a month following this, I’ve received an EMAIL from Debt Recovery Plus stating that they’ve been instructed to collect my debt. Firstly, does it matter that I’ve been contacted by email rather than post?

Secondly, is there any advice on what to do next or am I just waiting it out as per the newbies thread?

Thank you for reading my post and my apologies again if this is elsewhere.

Gr1pr

Ignore the powerless debt collectors regardless of which contact method they use, they are irrelevant

You are waiting it out, first a Letter of Claim giving you 30 days notice, followed by a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL, eventually. !

James_Poisson

"In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal"

This is a lie, Elliott v Loake (1982) is a criminal case where the court concluded the registered keeper of a car was also the driver because physical and forensic evidence proved it, not because a keeper is automatically presumed to be the driver.

Le_Kirk

the NTK showed the car leaving and exiting

Isn't that the same thing?

Coupon-mad

Classic pseudo-legal Elliott v Loake misleading codswallop from the IAS.

Seems the IAS hasn't changed a bit since new Lead Adjudicator David Finney reckons he was 'separating it' from the IPC … coincidentally around the time the CMA started to look at the parking industry a year ago.

The bit in bold is IPC-speak b@ll@cks of course.

If this was the legal position, then there would have been no need for Parliament to even legislate to pass Sch4 of the POFA, or to take special steps to update it (as they inexplicably last year to favour PPCs) by adding railway car parks to the definition of 'relevant land'!

Please post this one in my IAS Decisions thread, thanks:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.

The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case.

In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.

The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities.

If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed.

However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator maintains that the Appellant exceeded their paid parking session.

The Appellant states that the NTK is out of time.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal.

The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was not the driver at the time of the incident.

In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that she was not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

The Appellant should note that whilst she makes reference to the VCS case, county court judgments are not binding here.

The Appellant takes issue with the contents of the NTK. I am restricted to the legal issues as to whether the charge was properly issued, as such this issue is beyond my remit.

They may however wish to raise this with the Operator directly through their complaint's procedure.

The Operator provides evidence that only 1 hour of parking was purchased, between 10:45 and 11:45, yet the Appellant's vehicle was on site between 10:39 and 12:02. The Appellant overstayed between 11:45 and 12:02.

This exceeds the 10 minute grace period applied to motorists.

The consideration period (the time between 10:39 and 10:45) does not form part of the overstay.

The Appellant puts the Operator to proof as to the calibration and functionality of ANPR. Whilst I will accept the premise the technology is not infallible; it is very persuasive. In order to satisfy me there was a failure on this occasion, the Appellant must provide some evidence beyond their mere assertion. To succeed the evidence would need to be similarly persuasive. In the absence of such clear evidence, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis.

The Operator need provide no information.

Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable.

However, there is no requirement to provide anything.

The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator.

Whilst the Appellant puts the Operator to proof that the signage on site was sufficient, she will appreciate that the evidence not only is sufficient but corroborated by the fact that a payment was made.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

🤪