Appeal against PCN [PCN Reference Number]
I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, which was issued to me, the registered keeper of vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number] for an alleged parking contravention at the London Aquatic Centre, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
I am challenging this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Land Governed by Byelaws – Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) Inapplicability
The location where the alleged parking incident occurred is governed by byelaws made under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 by the London Borough of Newham, which apply to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. As such, the land is under statutory control.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 explicitly excludes land under statutory control from its provisions. Consequently, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued under PoFA 9(2)(b) is invalid, and it is unlawful for ParkingEye to attempt to hold the registered keeper liable in this instance. I decline to provide the identity of the driver, and as keeper, I have no liability for this parking charge.
2. Breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) Section 21.2 clearly states that where parking is subject to statutory control (such as areas governed by byelaws), PoFA cannot be used to establish keeper liability. By issuing an NtK citing PoFA on land where it does not apply, ParkingEye is in breach of the BPA CoP. Furthermore, this constitutes a misrepresentation of ParkingEye's authority to enforce parking charges under PoFA, contravening the BPA’s requirement for transparency and fairness.
3. Unlawful Use of My Personal Data – Breach of the KADOE Contract
ParkingEye's request for my data from the DVLA was made under the KADOE contract, which stipulates that data may only be accessed for "Reasonable Cause." Under Section B2.1 of the KADOE contract, Reasonable Cause includes seeking recovery of parking charges in accordance with PoFA or the ATA Code of Practice.
Given that PoFA does not apply to land under statutory control, the use of my data to pursue a PoFA-based charge was not in accordance with the KADOE contract. This constitutes unlawful processing of my data, as there was no legal basis for its use in this context.
[4. Insufficient Details of the Alleged Breach
The NtK fails to specify the exact nature of the contravention, only stating that either "not purchasing the appropriate parking time" or "remaining longer than permitted" occurred. This lack of specificity does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, even if PoFA were applicable, and fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.
Requested Actions
In light of the above points, I request that ParkingEye:
Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately.
Cease any further contact with me regarding this PCN, aside from confirmation of cancellation.
Please be aware that a separate, formal complaint will be raised with ParkingEye concerning this matter, and I will escalate the complaint to the BPA if not resolved. The unlawful use of my data under the KADOE contract, along with the breaches of the BPA CoP, will form the basis of a separate complaint to the DVLA.
Should this appeal be rejected, please provide a detailed explanation addressing each point raised and a POPLA code for further independent adjudication.