SmartParking PCN

Dab_2026

Hi all,

I've received a PCN from SmartParking and wanted some advise.

I have searched the forum but can't see one with the same details as this, so thought I'd post and ask for help.

• Car park was full at the time, vehicle parked to the side in the car park - picture with red box shows where - parking was paid via Ringo
• Gravel car park, no parking lines or markings indicating designated bays (photos attached)
• No notice was left on the vehicle - first correspondence received was a NTK by post, arriving 14 days after incident, although NTK shows as issued a few days after incident.
• The notice cites paragraph 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the pofa2012, which as I understand, only applies where a NTD was given to the driver at the time of the event or left on the vehicle. As no such notice was given, shouldn't paragraph 9 apply instead?

If that is the case, is the fine basically void as they can't prove who was driving the vehicle?

I've not yet appealed, but I was going to send the below, does this cover it all or need to amend any of this?
I have blotted out the car from the images, not sure if I needed too!

The other question I have, as it's only £40, do I just pay to save all the hassle? Is the hassle worth £40?

Thanks,

I dispute this parking charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions should be drawn.

1. No keeper liability has been established under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

No Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle or handed to the driver. The postal Notice to Keeper was the first notice received in relation to this alleged parking event.

Despite this, Smart Parking's Notice to Keeper expressly states:

“You are notified under paragraph 8(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”

and:

“This Notice is given to you under Paragraph 8(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

Paragraph 8 concerns a Notice to Keeper following the giving of a Notice to Driver. No Notice to Driver was given in this case.

Where no Notice to Driver has been given, the applicable statutory provisions for establishing keeper liability are contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4.

Smart Parking has therefore not demonstrated that the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 have been satisfied so as to transfer liability for the driver's alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.

If Smart Parking maintains that I am liable as registered keeper, please identify precisely which provisions of Schedule 4 are relied upon and demonstrate how each applicable requirement has been satisfied in circumstances where no Notice to Driver was issued.

1. Alleged contravention – no clearly delineated marked bay/area

The alleged contravention is:

“N07 – Parked outside of a marked bay/area.”

I dispute that the evidence establishes this contravention.

The car park consists of a substantially continuous gravel surface. There are no visible painted individual bay markings and no sufficiently clear markings or delineation identifying the boundaries between permitted parking areas and areas in which parking is prohibited.

If Smart Parking maintains that the vehicle was outside a marked bay/designated area, please provide:

Photographic evidence from the material date clearly showing the markings or physical boundaries of the relevant bay/designated area;
Evidence showing how those boundaries were clearly visible and identifiable to motorists;
A site plan identifying the designated parking areas and the location in which Smart Parking alleges the vehicle was parked;
Photographs of the signage in place on the material date; and
Evidence of Smart Parking's authority from the landowner to enforce this particular parking restriction and pursue parking charges at this location.

In the absence of evidence establishing both keeper liability and the alleged parking contravention, I require the Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled.

Dab_2026

Just bumping this post as it's easily missed, thanks.

Gr1pr

15 years from being a pcn newbie on MSE, I have never seen any private pcn shown to be void, its just an invoice from a private parking company claimant demanding payment due to the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property , a claim made under civil contract law ( i could demand £100 for anyone reading my post ! It doesn't make this post void, but my demands would be unenforceable in law )

They may have a point, against the driver ( if known. )

The legal test would be, is it enforceable or unenforceable. ?

The Operative likely used a handheld camera, MNPR , so not ANPR as tends to be more usual

Dab_2026

Thanks, that makes sense, void was the wrong word to use, I guess the question is with citing the wrong paragraph, they'd need to identify the driver, if they don't, then the fine is not enforceable by law?

Aside from that, I'll go ahead and appeal with the bays not being marked, I'm guessing from your experience, the same applies, very rare they will cancel the pcn.

How much hassle is the whole process of this? Just want to work out if it's worth just paying £40 to have it clear.

Gr1pr

If it was deemed to be a fine by the issuer, then it is definitely not enforceable in law, because magistrates issue fines , not private parking companies, who are actually banned by the dvla, the IPC and the BPA, from using certain legal words like that word , same as void

I definitely wouldn't pay any private parking company in a currently unregulated industry, just to make it "go away "

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139210#Comment_82139210

Appeal it and try the kangaroo court of the IAS too because I see no bay markings there.

No paying this invoice at all.

You don't even pay if you 'lose' at the farce of IAS - which is not seen to be impartial - but give it a go because Smart are pretty bad at evidence.

Dab_2026

Sorry, didn't get a notification for the replies!
Yeah definitely no bay markings, just gravel.

Thank you, I appealed 2 weeks ago now and not heard anything back from them yet, and then I'll follow the IAS appeal and take it from there.