Fair enough, as I often say, it's your money at stake, so your call to make.
In the interests of clarity, my goal isn't to influence a particular course of action over another, just to point out both the options for success, and conversely any potential risks involved, so that people can make an informed decision on that basis.
I have paid PE as it seemed too much hassle to take to court for the amount involved.
Whilst I note your point regarding nine other St Michael’s Court car parks being in the country, the driver would know which St Michael’s Court they used on the day - at the time in question. Hence, the parking operator gives you, as the registered keeper, the opportunity to provide the driver’s details to transfer liability to them.
On the bright side, I have not heard another word from PE about getting the parking penalty out of me.Fingers crossed they've put you in the 'too much effort' pile - but keep your eye out for any correspondence, they have 6 years to make a claim, although ParkingEye aren't usually the type to wait until the last minute to issue a claim.
Am I safe just to keep my head down and say nothing?Depends what you mean by 'safe' - in theory they have up to 6 years to take court action, although ParkingEye tend not to waste too much time.
Can't hurt.Indeed.
The main issue seems to be one of judgement rather than fact (I.e. The assessor judged that the location was specific enough for PoFA liability to apply)
But it seems there is no possibility of a formal review of the decision as there would be with London TribunalsCorrect, although unlike with them, the final decision is not binding on you, leaving open the possibility to argue your case in court. The main issue seems to be one of judgement rather than fact (I.e. The assessor judged that the location was specific enough for PoFA liability to apply), which means POPLA are very likely not to change their minds.
If I do want to take it further is it me initiating the court case or do I sit back, not pay, and wait for PE to take me to court?It is for ParkingEye to initiate, they are the ones with the alleged claim against you. They have up to 6 years to make a claim, but they're usually relatively prompt in going to court.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Ashlea Forshaw
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • Registered keeper/ driver • Failure to comply with PoFA • Understanding keeper liability • Rejection of appeal In support of this appeal the appellant has evidence the following: • A word document elaborating on their grounds of appeal I will take the above into account. The appellant has commented on the parking operators case file reiterating their grounds of appeal and expanding on those.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs at this site advise that parking tariffs apply. Up to 3 hours is £3.00. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has evidenced the appellant’s vehicle parked on site for the duration of 2 hours and 35 minutes. A payment report has been provided which shows that the appellant purchased 2 hours parking time that day. The appellant has overstayed the parking time by 35 minutes. No payment was made for the additional overstay. I note the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal and so, I will be addressing each ground individually.
• Registered keeper/ driver/ Understanding keeper liability They say they are the registered keeper and was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the event. They raise the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. When a parking operator does not know who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged offence, it will look to pursue the registered keeper using PoFA 2012. When doing so, schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA must be followed. Paragraph 9 states; 9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (4)The notice must be given by— (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. I have reviewed the notice to keeper and I can see that the date of the contravention was 27 July 2023 and the PCN was issued on 1 August 2023. This was within the 14 day time limit. As such, PoFA 2012 has been met and the appellant as the registered keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges.
The appellant has referred to a statement made by a barrister [who is the former head of POPLA] in regards to keeper liability. As stated above the notice has met the requirements laid out in PoFA 2012 [except it hasn't] and so I will not comment on the information noted by the barrister. Within their comments, they say the parking operator has stated, “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. They say this contradicts what is on the PCN itself as it states it has been issued under PoFA. I understand the confusion caused however it is my view that a typographical error has been made in the case file. It can be seen that the PCN was issued under PoFA. [And what about the second PCN issued three weeks later stated not to be under POFA? Was the whole thing a typo?]
• Failure to comply with PoFA. The parking operator has failed to specify the location of the relevant land as required in paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012. They say a google search shows that there are 9 different ‘St Michaels courts’. Whilst I appreciate their concerns, within PoFA 2012 under schedule 4, paragraph 9 it states; “The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. By stating relevant land, it does not require a full site address including postal code. Therefore, I am satisfied that ‘St Michaels Court’ does identify the car park where the appellant parked and meets PoFA 2012 paragraph 9. • Rejection of appeal They say that the parking operator has failed to respond to the key points of their appeal regarding the location of the car park. I do understand how frustrating this may be not having received a detailed response to their appeal from the parking operator however POPLA does not work for or on behalf of the parking operator’s and so, we cannot become involved in any complaints regarding failures in its service. The appellant would need to raise this to the parking operator directly- [which of course I did on several occasions]. On reviewing this case, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly as insufficient time was purchased for their stay. This appeal has been refused.
The great majority of Parking Eye’s submission is simply a reproduction of past notices and correspondence which does not require further comment. I comment on the further material put forward by Parking Eye as follows, together with a summary of the main thrust of my appeal which remains unaddressed by Parking Eye (“PE”).
1. I am the registered keeper of the car XXXXXX which was the subject of a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) for a parking event on 27 July as recorded on PE’s cameras. I was not the driver and I have stated this clearly to PE in my appeal. On the back of the PCN is a paragraph under the heading “Protection of Freedoms Act” which asserts PE’s rights and intentions to hold the keeper liable if it cannot identify the driver.
The implied contract is between the driver and the landowner, acting through PE as its agent. PE’s redress for breach of contract is against the driver. Only in the case where PE has complied strictly with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA, and where the driver has not been identified, can PE transfer liability to me as the registered keeper, relying on the provisions under POFA that they quote as above. As stated, this is what they warned me they would do.
However, under the heading Additional Information appearing on page 4 (pdf page count) of PE’s submission to POPLA they say:
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not [my emphasis] issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
This clearly contradicts what they said on the PCN but as this is their final word on the subject I have to take it as such and accordingly they have no basis on which to transfer any liability for a parking charge from the driver (who has not been identified) to me as registered keeper. As such my appeal must be upheld.
It is also noteworthy that in the Case History in PE’s submission is included:
30/08/2023 Letter Issued - Driver Details Required non POFA
Which seems to suggest they were proceeding at that stage on the basis that they were not under POFA notwithstanding what the PCN said. What they issued on 30 August was a second PCN detailing the same parking event as the original PCN but without reference to POFA on the back. I submit they cannot legitimately superimpose a second PCN over the top of the first one on different terms and without explanation. That second PCN also made some confusing and plain incorrect statements about what I had or had not told them about the driver.
2. Prior to seeing the latest submission from PE which asserts they are not seeking to make me liable under POFA, I was appealing on the grounds that PE had not followed the strict requirements under Schedule 4 which includes a requirement to specify the “relevant land”. By stating the location as only “St Michael’s Court” with no street, town or postcode this does not specify the location uniquely or accurately. As I said in my appeal, there are 9 St Michaels Courts in England and it could have been any of them. So even if PE were to assert they are pursuing me under POFA, they have not complied with the strict requirements under Schedule 4 (note the words of Henry Greenslade, former POPLA Lead Adjudicator in 2015). PE has never replied to this point and does not do so now. It turned down my appeal, on grounds that I had never advanced, relating to signage.
3. If the PCN was issued under POFA then I contend that there is a defect which renders it non-compliant with section 9(2)(a) of POFA 2012 and as such liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper. If, as PE now says, the PCN was not issued under POFA then their redress is only against the driver and I was not the driver.
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012Part of me wonders if they included this line by accident. Nevertheless it is potential gold dust, and you should ensure that your response to their evidence pack draws clear attention to it.
my whole appeal rests on not knowing where the car park in question is.Not quite - your appeal rests on them having failed to specify the relevant land, as required by PoFA to recover the charge from the keeper. If you don't know where it was, that doesn't mean you don't owe the money. But if they've not complied with PoFA, then that does mean you don't owe the money.
But nevertheless, I can see a decent argument for leaving out the landowner authority part.
I'd say this latest draft flows a lot better than the previous. I would remove the word 'offence', perhaps refer to a 'parking event' instead.
(I've edited your post to remove your ParkingEye Reference # and your VRM).
my whole appeal rests on not knowing where the car park in question is.Not quite - your appeal rests on them having failed to specify the relevant land, as required by PoFA to recover the charge from the keeper. If you don't know where it was, that doesn't mean you don't owe the money. But if they've not complied with PoFA, then that does mean you don't owe the money.
Registered Keeper/Driver
I received a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Parking Eye (“PE”) to Registered Keeper ref ###### dated 1 August 2023 for vehicle VRM ###### of which I am the registered keeper, alleging a parking “offence” on 27 July. I was not the driver of the car on the date in question and I have made this clear in my appeal to PE. They are therefore pursuing me for payment of the PCN as Registered Keeper and not as the driver. This brings the PCN within the ambit of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).
Failure to Comply with POFA
This PCN fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the location of the relevant land as required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to determine the location of the alleged breach of their conditions because the PCN states the address as just "St Michaels Court". A quick check on Google Maps finds at least nine St Michaels Courts in England including Aylsham, Amersham, two addresses in London, South Shields, Gloucester, Derby, Litchfield and Weybridge. PE therefore cannot transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the Registered Keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I have not done so. Even if the address is more specifically noted in another medium or at a later date, the PCN itself needs to specify “the location of the relevant land” and it does not.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with [my emphasis], it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from me as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using POFA, because (as is the case here), Schedule 4 has not been strictly complied with.
Appeal to PE
The PCN set out four options as follows:
To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.
I elected to appeal which I did on 14 August and which then gave PE 35 days to serve their substantive response.
On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal but asked again for the driver's details. It went on to say that “if this information is not provided within 28 days the appeal may well be rejected". This appeared to tie their consideration of the merits of my appeal to my willingness to supply the driver's details, which I am under no legal obligation to provide. They were effectively fettering their discretion.
Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice and ranks alongside the fourth 'option' of paying the parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the code.
On 1 September I wrote to PE bringing this extra-procedural response to their attention. They responded by post in a letter received by me on 4 September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged parking charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days of the [new] issue date.
On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as follows:
“We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you [me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the parking event [which I did not]…..if you were not the driver at the time [I had already told them I was not] you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no legal obligation to do this]”.
They had thus sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of issue for the same “offence” including a paragraph in the second which is misinformed and thoroughly confusing.
Rejection of Appeal
Finally on 16 September PE sent a letter rejecting my appeal. The reason given for the rejection was as follows:
“We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.”
This signally fails to address the fundamental point of my appeal which is that the PCN does not identify the location of the car park where the “offence” is alleged to have taken place and hence I have no opportunity to inspect any signage. Simply telling me it was “St Michael’s Court” does not give me sufficient detail to allow me to locate the car park in question and hence any discussion of the terms and conditions that were or were not displayed and were or were not breached is simply irrelevant. I made no reference in my appeal to such terms and conditions. PE has wilfully ignored the whole question of “location of the relevant land” which demonstrates that my appeal has not been properly considered.
Summary
I contend that there is a defect in the original PCN which renders it non-compliant with section 9(2)(a) of POFA 2012 and as such liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper. No subsequent further or better specification of the address (of which there has been none) can remedy this defect.
As a secondary point of appeal I note PE’s issue of a second PCN dated 30 August but alleging the same offence date of 27 July, which bore an incoherent paragraph on the back (as set out above) claiming I had done or said things as the registered keeper that patently I had not. Taken together with the implied threat that if I did not identify the driver my appeal “may well be rejected” this is an example of outrageous bad faith that should call for the PCN to be dismissed immediately.
Finally, my appeal has been rejected in what looks like a standard form letter that fails to address the key ground for my appeal and demonstrates that it has not been properly considered at all.
I request that the appeal be upheld and the charge cancelled.
I received a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) to Keeper ref 226902/075498 dated 1 August 2023 for vehicle VRM LF64SFY of which I am the registered keeper, alleging a parking “offence” on 27 July. I was not the driver of the car on the date in question.
This Notice failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the location of the relevant land as required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to determine the location of the alleged breach of their conditions because the PCN stated the address as just "St Michaels Court". A quick check on Google Maps finds at least nine St Michaels Courts in England including Aylsham, Amersham, two addresses in London, South Shields, Gloucester, Derby, Litchfield and Weybridge. Parking Eye therefore cannot transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I have not done so.
Even if the address is more specifically noted in another medium or at a later date, the PCN needs to specify the location of the relevant land and it does not. I appealed to Parking Eye on these grounds on 14 August.
On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal.
The PCN set out four options as follows:
To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.
I elected to appeal which then gave Parking Eye 35 days to serve their substantive response. The 30 August response asked again for the driver's details and implied that if I did not comply my appeal "may well be rejected". This appeared to tie their consideration of the merits of my appeal to my willingness to supply the driver's details, which I am under no legal obligation to provide. They were effectively fettering their discretion.
Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice and ranks alongside the fourth 'option' of paying the parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the code.
On 1 September I wrote to Parking Eye bringing this extra-procedural response to their attention.
They responded by post in a letter received by me on 4 September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged parking charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days of the [new] issue date.
On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as follows:
“We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you [me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the parking event [which I did not]…..if you were not the driver at the time [I had already told them I was not] you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no legal obligation to do this]”.
They had thus sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of issue for the same “offence” and a letter which is misinformed and thoroughly confusing.
Finally on 16 September Parking Eye sent a letter rejecting my appeal. The reason given for the rejection was as follows:
“We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.”
This signally fails to address the fundamental point of my appeal which is that the PCN does not identify the location of the car park where the “offence” is alleged to have taken place. Simply telling me it was “St Michael’s Court” does not give me sufficient detail to allow me to locate the car park in question and hence any discussion of the terms and conditions that were or were not displayed and were or were not breached is simply irrelevant. I made no reference in my appeal to such terms and conditions. Thus I contend that there is a defect in the original PCN which renders it non-compliant with section 9(2)(a) of POFA 2012 and as such liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper. No subsequent further specification of the address (of which there has been none) can remedy this defect.
As a secondary point of appeal I note Parking Eye’s issue of a second PCN dated 30 August but alleging the same offence date of 27 July, which bore an incoherent paragraph on the back (as set out above) claiming I had done or said things as the registered keeper that patently I had not. Taken together with the implied threat that if I did not identify the driver my appeal “may well be rejected” this is an example of outrageous bad faith that should call for the PCN to be dismissed immediately.
they have given me all the blurb for appealing to POPLA but NOT the 10 digit number they need to send with their letter of rejection.They have, it's immediately above 'Dear Sir/Madam'.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These
terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.
I think I'd me minded to, yes. Although if you're making use of HCAndersen's wording, change 'penalty charge' to 'parking charge'.Note the above. A minor difference, but important when you're trying to sound like you know your stuff.
Dear Sir,
On 14 August I appealed PCN 226902/075498 which you issued on 1 August.
On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal.
On 1 September I wrote to you bringing this extra-procedural response to your attention.
You responded by post in a letter received by me on 4 September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged penalty charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days of the [new] issue date.
On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as follows:
“We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you [me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the parking event [no I have not]…..if you were not the driver at the time [I have already told you I was not] you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no legal obligation to do this].
You have now sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of issue for the same “offence” and a letter which is misinformed and thoroughly confusing.
As the circumstances of these PCNs are identical and the addressee the same in each case, I trust you will now cancel both, given that the second has no validity, and that you have failed to supply a comprehensive answer to the appeal against the first.
I refer to the above PCN dated 1 August and my appeal dated 14 August.
In the PCN you set out 4 options as follows:
To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.
I elected to appeal which then gave you 35 days to serve your substantive response. You have not done so, instead you have sent a reply asking again for the driver's details and implying that if I did not comply my appeal "may well be rejected". This appears to tie your consideration of the merits of my appeal to my willingness to supply the driver's details, which I am under no legal obligation to provide. You are effectively fettering your discretion.
Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice and ranks alongside your 4th 'option' of paying the parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the code.
As your response is extra-procedural you cannot rely upon it to relieve you of your obligation to respond within the 35-day period, addressing my substantive point regarding location. I look forward to receiving this reply.
Anyway, now sitting back to see what they come back with......If you appealed online, keep an eye on your email spam folder.
Yes, that's really what I was getting at i.e. they can't adduce new evidence/infoIt's nothing to do with 'evidence'.
(who on earth gave it that daft name? Whose freedoms are being protected?)Bear in mind that the Protection of Freedoms Act is a large piece of legislation, and only one of its schedules relates to parking on private land. Other parts of the act regulate the storage/destruction of fingerprint records by the police and others, the regulation of CCTV use, the protection of property from disproportionate enforcement action, counter-terrorism powers, protecting vulnerable groups, disregarding convictions for outdated crimes like buggery etc., and other measures...
However, this just is not on the face of the PCN and hence I am arguing (or will argue if necessary) that this is inadmissible.Indeed. To be clear, it's not that the extra information they've included on the appeal website is 'inadmissible' - if the matter goes to POPLA/court, they can include whatever information they so desire. Your argument would be that Schedule 4 of PoFA clearly states that it is the Notice to Keeper that must specify the location, if they want to hold the keeper liable, and that simply stating 'St Michaels Court' does not do this. The fact that further information is provided on their website is largely irrelevant. (After all, not all PCN recipients will visit the website, some will either pay or appeal entirely by post)
So they do maintain the discount pending their reply.Good to know!
Thank you for contacting Parkingeye, we acknowledge receipt of your appeal.
We endeavour to respond to all appeals as soon as possible. Whilst we consider an appeal the parking charge amount will not increase. Please note that a full written response may take up to 28 days.
Kind Regards,
Parkingeye Appeals Team
I don't think they can come back and say "sorry, here's the full address with postcode, you have another 14 days to pay the discounted amount."They can come back with whatever they like, but if they want to engage PoFA to hold the keeper liable, then it's what's on the Notice to Keeper that counts. For a belt and braces approach, you could send your appeal so that it arrives too late for them to issue a compliant notice (so if submitting online, day 13 would do it).
Dear Sirs,
I received your Notice to Keeper 226902/075498 for vehicle VRM LF64SFY of which I am the registered keeper. I was not the driver of the car on the date in question.
You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the location of the relevant land as required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to determine the location of the alleged breach of your conditions because you have stated the address as just "St Michaels Court". A quick check on Google Maps finds at least nine St Michaels Courts in England including Aylsham, Amersham, two addresses in London, South Shields, Gloucester, Derby, Litchfield and Weybridge. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so. I look forward to receiving your notice of acceptance. Should you reject this representation I shall appeal to POPLA. It will not be in order for you to specify the address more closely in a reply. Only the information on the PCN is admissible. Please note I am making this representation within 14 days of issue of the PCN.
Still asking the question - if I appeal to PE within 14 days i.e. by next Tues, will they keep the discount in place pending their reply?It will tell you on the PCN, but they will reject the appeal anyway (because they can) so it's not a relevant question unless you intend to pay when they reject, in which case you may as well pay now as they will reject.
Dear Sirs,
I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx
You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the location of the relevant land as required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to determine the location of the alleged breach of your conditions by the wide area covered by the street name and postcode you have given, which contains a number of private and public car parks. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc
[The driver] parked the car in a private car park in Amersham controlled by Parking Eye on 27 July. She is not now sure whether she paid for two hours and exceeded it, or the limit of free parking was 2 hours and she exceeded that. The PCN does not make it clear either.I would imagine it is the former - as the PCN states:
"By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted....the parking charge is now payable"I take your point about the 'catch all' phrase being rather vague, although it is standard for ParkingEye charges, and I think it would be an uphill battle to convince POPLA or a judge that the charge is not owed on that basis alone. A counter argument is that the two options describe largely the same thing: if a motorist pays for 2 hours parking and stays for 2 and a half, then they have both not purchased the appropriate parking time and stayed for longer than permitted.
I can obviously appeal citing vagueness of both the offence and the location but I guess Parking Eye will just turn that down automatically.This might be a more applicable avenue. You're right that the location is rather vague - St Michael's Court isn't a particularly unique name for a location, and without a town or postcode it could refer to a number of locations. In order to hold you liable as the keeper (rather than holding the driver, who they do not know, liable), they need to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. 9(2)(a) of that Act says they must