Yesterday, 12:55 PM
Thankyou @b789 and @Brenda_R2. You were quite correct and a reply (below) has been received. What would the next course of action be please?
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we
believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the
area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period, we have extended the
discount period until 08/09/2026.
The PC was issued because the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions displayed
on signage at the location. After carefully reviewing the information you have provided, we are satisfied
that the PC was issued correctly and therefore your appeal has been unsuccessful.
You have confirmed that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but have declined to identify the
driver at the time of the parking event. As the keeper, you were invited to provide the full name and
serviceable address of the driver if you were not the person in control of the vehicle on the date in
question. You have not done so.
While the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not
apply at this location, this does not prevent us from pursuing the individual who was responsible for the
vehicle at the time of the contravention. In the absence of driver details, and based on the information
available, we are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was also the driver. This position has been
supported in case law, including Elliott v Loake, where the court accepted that keeper responsibility
may give rise to a reasonable inference as to the identity of the driver when no alternative explanation
is provided.
You have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that you were not the driver, nor have you provided
the details of the person who was driving. Accordingly, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities
that you were the driver at the time of the parking event and remain liable for the outstanding charge.
Having noted your comments, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and
your appeal is rejected.
We can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued due to insufficient paid time. Our payment system
shows that 120 minutes was purchased against vehicle however, your vehicle remained on site for a
total of 153 minutes. Additional time can be purchased at any point during your stay, before exiting the
car park. As your vehicle was parked in excess of the parking time purchased, the advertised terms and
conditions have been breached.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two
options, you can pay or appeal further with IAS – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, (IAS) using the instructions
below. Please note, should you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently rejected,
the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PC will be
due.
If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to visit the website, https://www.theias.org/
where further details of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from the date of this
letter to submit an appeal to IAS.
Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:
• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking
Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37
7HE.
• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card, please visit
www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge number to hand.
• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment service on 0330 057 6230.
Please have your Parking Charge number to hand. Please note that calls to this number cost
up to 7p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.
Yours sincerely,
Smart Parking Limited
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we
believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the
area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period, we have extended the
discount period until 08/09/2026.
The PC was issued because the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions displayed
on signage at the location. After carefully reviewing the information you have provided, we are satisfied
that the PC was issued correctly and therefore your appeal has been unsuccessful.
You have confirmed that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but have declined to identify the
driver at the time of the parking event. As the keeper, you were invited to provide the full name and
serviceable address of the driver if you were not the person in control of the vehicle on the date in
question. You have not done so.
While the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not
apply at this location, this does not prevent us from pursuing the individual who was responsible for the
vehicle at the time of the contravention. In the absence of driver details, and based on the information
available, we are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was also the driver. This position has been
supported in case law, including Elliott v Loake, where the court accepted that keeper responsibility
may give rise to a reasonable inference as to the identity of the driver when no alternative explanation
is provided.
You have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that you were not the driver, nor have you provided
the details of the person who was driving. Accordingly, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities
that you were the driver at the time of the parking event and remain liable for the outstanding charge.
Having noted your comments, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and
your appeal is rejected.
We can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued due to insufficient paid time. Our payment system
shows that 120 minutes was purchased against vehicle however, your vehicle remained on site for a
total of 153 minutes. Additional time can be purchased at any point during your stay, before exiting the
car park. As your vehicle was parked in excess of the parking time purchased, the advertised terms and
conditions have been breached.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two
options, you can pay or appeal further with IAS – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, (IAS) using the instructions
below. Please note, should you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently rejected,
the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PC will be
due.
If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to visit the website, https://www.theias.org/
where further details of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from the date of this
letter to submit an appeal to IAS.
Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:
• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking
Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37
7HE.
• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card, please visit
www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge number to hand.
• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment service on 0330 057 6230.
Please have your Parking Charge number to hand. Please note that calls to this number cost
up to 7p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.
Yours sincerely,
Smart Parking Limited
