That is NOT an appeal rejection. Please read it carefully.
Here is a suitable response:QuoteSubject: Your Failure to Address the Non-Compliance of Your Notice to Keeper
Dear ParkingEye,
I refer to your recent response, which entirely misses the point of my original appeal. It seems your appeal team has either failed to read or failed to understand my grounds for disputing this charge. I will now spell it out for you as clearly as possible.
I specifically stated that your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your response rambles on about Paragraph 9(2)(f), but the non-compliance I referenced relates to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
For clarity:
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
You cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
ParkingEye cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
With the above in mind, I respectfully request you uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN or provide me with a POPLA code so that I can raise the matter further.
Subject: Your Failure to Address the Non-Compliance of Your Notice to Keeper
Dear ParkingEye,
I refer to your recent response, which entirely misses the point of my original appeal. It seems your appeal team has either failed to read or failed to understand my grounds for disputing this charge. I will now spell it out for you as clearly as possible.
I specifically stated that your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your response rambles on about Paragraph 9(2)(f), but the non-compliance I referenced relates to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
For clarity:
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
You cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
ParkingEye cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
With the above in mind, I respectfully request you uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN or provide me with a POPLA code so that I can raise the matter further.
If you compare the back of the original and the reminder, you will see the difference. It is as expected but we needed to confirm. For now, makes no difference to the suggested appeal.
We don’t need to see any reminders or debt collector letters.
You have only shown us the PCN reminder. We would need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
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. ParkingEye 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. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.