08-04-2026, 09:51 AM
Wise words there from @Brenda_R2. @Tezzy, welcome to the forum. You are the proud recipient of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the form of a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
The single most important mantra in this (and any other) case is to NEVER, EVER, identify the driver. The scammers at (not so) Smart Parking have absolutely no idea who the driver is. All they know is that you are the registered keeper. The ONLY way they could ever find out who the driver is, is if YOU tell them.
There is absolutely no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. They are not allowed to assume or infer that because you are the Keeper that you therefore must also be the driver. They will try and intimidate you by saying otherwise, but all you have to remember is this is a firm of scammers who are only interested in your money.
The PCN is nothing but a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. According to (not so) Smart Parking, the driver entered into a contract with them when they parked at the location. So, ONLY the driver can be liable. They do not know the name and address of the driver and so they have sent the invoice to you in the hope you will just pay it or give them the drivers details so they can pursue that unknown (to them) person.
There is a law in England and Wales called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This law was enacted to give these parasitic parking firms an option to hold the Keeper of the vehicle liable if the driver is not identified. However, in order to be able to do so, they must FULLY comply with ALL the requirements of that Act. If they do, then they can hold the Keeper liable for the actions of the unknown (to them) driver.
In this case, they have not even attempted to try and use the Act. The most glaring failure to do so (to anyone familiar with the Act) is that they failed to serve (give) the NtK within the 14 relevant period. They must issue the NtK so that it can be given by post within 14 days of the alleged contravention. They must allow 2 working days for delivery. So, if the alleged contravention was on 12 July and the NtK was "issued" on Tuesday 28 July, it is deemed "given" on Thursday 30 July. That is 18 days after the alleged contravention and therefore not even close to the "relevant period" as mandated by PoFA.
On top of that, there is a whole host of other requirements that must be met if they intend to try and rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable for the charge. (Not so) Smart Parking have not even attempted to even try and rely on PoFA in this case.
So, whilst @Brenda_R2, is correct when they say that this is going to be a long drawn out affair, they are correct, because scamming firms like (not so) Smart Parking will hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will eventually just give in and pay them anyway, out of ignorance and fear. The reason it takes so long, with very little effort required by you except patience and trust, is because the initial appeal is almost ALWAYS rejected. That is because there is no money in it for them if they accept the appeal.
Once the initial appeal is rejected, you move on to the secondary appeal with the IAS. The IAS is a kangaroo court. It is owned and operated by the same people that the parking firms pay membership to in order to be able to get DVLA Keeper data, the IPC. The IAS is another scam where adjudicators pretend to be qualified solicitors (they are not) and their sole reason d'être is to look after their members income by rejecting over 95% of all appeals, irrespective of the argument.
Once that appeal is rejected, there is no legal obligation to pay. Any decision by the IAS is NOT binding on you. They will then start to send useless debt recovery letters. You need to understand that debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to also try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit into paying out of ignorance and fear. You can safely ignore the debt recovery letters. Use them as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray. Absolutely NOTHING will happen.
Eventually, they are most likely to use a firm of incompetent bulk litigation solicitors to issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) before they issue a county court claim in the small claims track. All this is designed to intimidate the victim into giving up and paying (by then) an increased amount. However, as I have already pointed out, the ONLY person that can be liable for the invoice is the driver. As the Keeper, there can be no liability. They know this but hope that you don't and which is why they will press on up until the very last moment before a hearing before a judge.
At this point, they will discontinue. It's just that the whole process takes a lot of time. WE are here to assist you through this process. You will learn some useful life lessons and why you should nt become that low-hanging fruit that they hope you are.
So, for the initial appeal, you do so ONLY as the Keeper. You only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that". only " the driver did this or that".
Do not select anything on their appeal website that infers that the appellant is the driver. You are ONLY appealing as the Keeper. If available, select "other":
The single most important mantra in this (and any other) case is to NEVER, EVER, identify the driver. The scammers at (not so) Smart Parking have absolutely no idea who the driver is. All they know is that you are the registered keeper. The ONLY way they could ever find out who the driver is, is if YOU tell them.
There is absolutely no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. They are not allowed to assume or infer that because you are the Keeper that you therefore must also be the driver. They will try and intimidate you by saying otherwise, but all you have to remember is this is a firm of scammers who are only interested in your money.
The PCN is nothing but a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. According to (not so) Smart Parking, the driver entered into a contract with them when they parked at the location. So, ONLY the driver can be liable. They do not know the name and address of the driver and so they have sent the invoice to you in the hope you will just pay it or give them the drivers details so they can pursue that unknown (to them) person.
There is a law in England and Wales called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This law was enacted to give these parasitic parking firms an option to hold the Keeper of the vehicle liable if the driver is not identified. However, in order to be able to do so, they must FULLY comply with ALL the requirements of that Act. If they do, then they can hold the Keeper liable for the actions of the unknown (to them) driver.
In this case, they have not even attempted to try and use the Act. The most glaring failure to do so (to anyone familiar with the Act) is that they failed to serve (give) the NtK within the 14 relevant period. They must issue the NtK so that it can be given by post within 14 days of the alleged contravention. They must allow 2 working days for delivery. So, if the alleged contravention was on 12 July and the NtK was "issued" on Tuesday 28 July, it is deemed "given" on Thursday 30 July. That is 18 days after the alleged contravention and therefore not even close to the "relevant period" as mandated by PoFA.
On top of that, there is a whole host of other requirements that must be met if they intend to try and rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable for the charge. (Not so) Smart Parking have not even attempted to even try and rely on PoFA in this case.
So, whilst @Brenda_R2, is correct when they say that this is going to be a long drawn out affair, they are correct, because scamming firms like (not so) Smart Parking will hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will eventually just give in and pay them anyway, out of ignorance and fear. The reason it takes so long, with very little effort required by you except patience and trust, is because the initial appeal is almost ALWAYS rejected. That is because there is no money in it for them if they accept the appeal.
Once the initial appeal is rejected, you move on to the secondary appeal with the IAS. The IAS is a kangaroo court. It is owned and operated by the same people that the parking firms pay membership to in order to be able to get DVLA Keeper data, the IPC. The IAS is another scam where adjudicators pretend to be qualified solicitors (they are not) and their sole reason d'être is to look after their members income by rejecting over 95% of all appeals, irrespective of the argument.
Once that appeal is rejected, there is no legal obligation to pay. Any decision by the IAS is NOT binding on you. They will then start to send useless debt recovery letters. You need to understand that debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to also try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit into paying out of ignorance and fear. You can safely ignore the debt recovery letters. Use them as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray. Absolutely NOTHING will happen.
Eventually, they are most likely to use a firm of incompetent bulk litigation solicitors to issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) before they issue a county court claim in the small claims track. All this is designed to intimidate the victim into giving up and paying (by then) an increased amount. However, as I have already pointed out, the ONLY person that can be liable for the invoice is the driver. As the Keeper, there can be no liability. They know this but hope that you don't and which is why they will press on up until the very last moment before a hearing before a judge.
At this point, they will discontinue. It's just that the whole process takes a lot of time. WE are here to assist you through this process. You will learn some useful life lessons and why you should nt become that low-hanging fruit that they hope you are.
So, for the initial appeal, you do so ONLY as the Keeper. You only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that". only " the driver did this or that".
Do not select anything on their appeal website that infers that the appellant is the driver. You are ONLY appealing as the Keeper. If available, select "other":
Quote:I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart Parking have little hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
