Her sis why they have not shown that their NtK is PoFA compliant:
PoFA 9(6) – Presumption of Delivery
“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.”
This is a rebuttable presumption. It is not absolute. The burden of proof lies initially on the recipient (keeper), who must provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.
What constitutes “proof to the contrary”?
To rebut the presumption, courts often require:
• Evidence raising reasonable doubt about delivery by the presumed date.
• Evidence that is more than mere assertion. A simple “I didn’t receive it” is usually not enough.
Where applicable, independent supporting evidence, such as:
• Proof of address accuracy issues
• Patterns of misdelivered post (e.g. letters arriving late or at wrong address)
• Evidence of the notice being sent second class or bulk mail without guaranteed delivery standards
• Absence of proof of actual date of posting (e.g. no franking or Post Office receipt)
• Poor scan quality or metadata anomalies in the operator’s documentation.
The presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 also depends on proper addressing, prepaying, and posting. If the operator fails to prove these points, the presumption is not made out at all.
You may argue:
“The operator has failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving that the notice was properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted as required by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Accordingly, the presumption of service cannot apply, or is rebutted.”
If the operator cannot prove posting on a specific date (e.g. no timestamp, no proof of mailing), they cannot benefit from the presumption of delivery under either PoFA or the Interpretation Act.
So, if you raise a substantive challenge to the operator’s claim of delivery and they fail to provide conclusive or adequate evidence, that can amount to the “contrary being proved”. It does not need to be a guaranteed rebuttal — a balance of probabilities is sufficient. If the operator relies on assumptions or generic processes, rather than specific proof of posting and addressing, you can argue the presumption is displaced.
I would respond to ParkingEye with the following:
Re: Parking Charge Reference [xxxx]
Vehicle Registration: [xxxx]
Formal Complaint – Continued
I refer to your recent correspondence following the British Parking Association’s (BPA) referral of my complaint back to you. Regrettably, your latest response entirely fails to address the core issue raised in my original complaint, namely that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not received, and therefore the requirement under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) — that the notice be “given” by the 14th day following the date of the alleged contravention — has not been met.
You rely on a mail consolidator report as proof of posting. However, PoFA 2012 requires more than internal records or generic process documentation to demonstrate that a notice was “given” within the statutory timeframe. Paragraph 9(6) of PoFA makes clear that the presumption of delivery on the second working day after posting only applies “unless the contrary is proved.”
That presumption is now rebutted.
I reiterate that the NtK dated 21/12/2024 was not received, and you have not provided any evidence capable of displacing that assertion. Your reference to a mail consolidator report lacks essential details such as:
The actual date of physical posting,
Confirmation that the mail was properly addressed, including full and correct flat/building numbers,
The class of post used (e.g. first-class, second-class, or non-priority),
Proof that the notice was handed over to Royal Mail for delivery, as required under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 to even engage the presumption of delivery.
Without these, the presumption under PoFA 9(6) cannot stand. It is insufficient to simply state that something was “issued” internally. Unless it was demonstrably posted and delivered within the prescribed timeframe, the statutory presumption of proper service does not apply.
Moreover, as PoFA compliance hinges on the notice being “given”, and your evidence fails to establish this, keeper liability has not been established in accordance with Schedule 4.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that a complaint specifically concerning the failure to demonstrate that a NtK was “given” has been dismissed based solely on a generic mail consolidator report, which does not itself prove that the notice was correctly addressed, prepaid and actually entered into the postal system. The requirement is not proof of delivery but rather proof of posting; only once proper posting is established does the statutory presumption of delivery arise. In this case, no such evidence has been provided beyond bare assertions and internal batch data, which are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Interpretation Act 1978 or to displace a credible assertion that the NtK was not received.
I again request that this Parking Charge be cancelled, and formal confirmation of cancellation provided. If you persist in pursuing this charge without satisfying the requirements of Schedule 4, I will escalate the matter to the DVLA and other relevant bodies for review of both your conduct and that of the BPA.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address if not already provided]
No way that a reminder is sent only 9 days after the original NtK. What you have been given by the BPA is not evidence of posting. It is only evidence of issue.
Their own CoP clearly states in section 8.1.2:
"...parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)[/inddnt]
Can you not show the actual document?
All that shows is:
SubmissionDateTime: 21/12/2024
PrintedDateTime: 24/12/2024 07:01
The date that the PCN info was submitted by PE to their mail consolidator... 21st December 2024.
It also shows that their mail consolidator printed the PCN on 24th December 2024, 3 days later and still does not evidence the date that letter entered the postal system.
Also...
Further to the above, the below shows the date in which the correspondence was sent:
All Outbound Correspondence
Date Issued Description Status
21/12/2024 Letter1 Ltr01 – 210 Sent
30/12/2024 Letter2 – Ltr02-210 Sent
What does that show? As far as I can make out, it only shows the date the letter was sent (transmitted) to their mail consolidator. Nothing proves the date the letter entered the postal system. f they were using Royal Mail, they can get a free "proof of posting" certificate which is sufficient evidence that it entered the postal system on the date on the certificate.
The BPA’s reply is inadequate, fails to address the specific points directly, and is evasive on key compliance issues raised. Their response either deflects or ignores important points regarding PoFA compliance and their own enforcement responsibilities. They shift responsibility back to ParkingEye rather than proactively enforcing compliance.
Respond with the following:
Subject: Inadequate Response to Formal Complaint – Request for Immediate Clarification
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
Thank you for your response dated [insert date]. I grant permission for the BPA to forward my correspondence to ParkingEye, with the explicit expectation that ParkingEye provides documentary evidence (e.g., Royal Mail Certificates of Posting) confirming the precise dates on which the letters were issued. I expect the BPA to independently review and verify this evidence to ensure compliance with both PoFA and the PPSCoP.
However, your reply is incomplete and has failed to fully address several critical aspects of my original complaint. To avoid ambiguity, please respond clearly and directly to each of the following points:
1. Omission of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2 (Second Half)
Your previous response merely stated:
"Our quote of the single-sector Code of Practice was not done to mislead. I apologise if you believe it appeared like that."
This does not explain why the second half of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2—which explicitly addresses the operator's obligation to provide evidence of posting—was omitted from your original reply. Please confirm clearly:
• The specific reason for omitting this highly relevant part of PPSCoP from your previous response.
2. Proof of Posting and BPA’s Regulatory Responsibility
You previously stated:
"We have not been provided with evidence to show that the letters were not posted when Parkingeye have stated so, we would be unable to advise on this."
This response sidesteps the BPA’s responsibility. The burden of proof rests with ParkingEye to demonstrate actual compliance, not on me to prove non-delivery. Therefore, please confirm explicitly:
• Whether ParkingEye has provided the BPA with tangible proof of posting (e.g., Royal Mail Certificate of Posting).
• If ParkingEye cannot or has not provided such evidence, clarify precisely what regulatory action the BPA intends to take against ParkingEye for this non-compliance.
3. BPA’s Position on PoFA Compliance Enforcement
Your response did not address the following critical point at all:
Please clearly clarify:
• The BPA’s official position on compliance enforcement relating specifically to PoFA, particularly regarding whether the statutory presumption of delivery can lawfully apply only after the parking operator has first provided documentary proof of the actual posting date.
This clarification is critical, as failure to enforce compliance on this point undermines the entire legislative framework upon which private parking enforcement relies.
4. Steps to Prevent Future Misleading or Selective Responses
Your previous response completely ignored this point:
The selective quoting of PPSCoP by the BPA severely undermines trust in the BPA’s integrity as an oversight body. Please explicitly confirm:
• What measures the BPA will implement to prevent similar misleading or selective quoting of your own Code of Practice in responses to future complaints.
Conclusion
Given the serious implications of these unanswered points, please respond comprehensively and transparently to each item above. A prompt and specific reply is expected, as these matters relate directly to BPA’s obligations to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability from accredited operators.
I look forward to your swift and comprehensive response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Reference/PCN Number]
Use the following as a response:
British Parking Association (BPA) Compliance Department
Haywards Heath Business Park
4th Floor, West Point
78 Queens Road
Haywards Heath, RH16 1EB
Subject: Formal Complaint: BPA Response Misrepresenting PoFA Compliance & Code of Practice Obligations
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
I am writing to formally challenge your response to my complaint regarding the private parking operator’s failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.2(e) Note 2. Your response was not only evasive but also misleading in its selective quoting of the BPA’s own Code of Practice. Given the serious nature of this matter, I request a substantive response that properly addresses the concerns raised.
1. Background & Facts
I initially raised a complaint about the failure of a BPA member operator to comply with PoFA’s delivery requirements for a Notice to Keeper (NtK). The BPA responded by quoting PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2, stating that a notice is presumed to be delivered two working days after posting unless proven otherwise. However, your response conveniently omitted the second half of the same Note, which clearly states:
“Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).”
This omission is crucial, as it misrepresents the obligations placed upon operators and attempts to shift the burden of proof onto motorists rather than ensuring compliance from your members.
2. Legal Violations
Your failure to acknowledge the full text of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2 directly contradicts the BPA’s role as a regulatory body overseeing fair enforcement practices. The following issues arise:
1. Failure to Ensure Code of Practice Compliance: The operator is required to retain proof of the actual date of posting, not simply the date the notice was generated. Your response does not confirm whether the operator has provided this proof.
2. Improper Burden of Proof Allocation: By stating that it is up to the motorist to disprove the presumption of delivery, you ignore the requirement that the operator must retain and provide evidence of posting before such a presumption can apply.
3. Regulatory Oversight Failure: If the BPA does not enforce this requirement, it undermines the integrity of the entire enforcement framework and calls into question its role as a regulatory body.
3. Requested BPA Actions
In light of the above, I request that the BPA:
1. Provide a clear response on why the second half of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2 was omitted from your reply, given its direct relevance to this complaint.
2. Confirm whether the parking operator has retained actual proof of posting and, if not, explain what regulatory action the BPA intends to take.
3. Clarify the BPA’s position on compliance enforcement regarding PoFA and whether it acknowledges that the presumption of delivery can only apply if the operator first provides proof of the actual posting date.
4. Confirm what steps the BPA will take to prevent misleading responses in future complaints, as this selective quoting severely undermines trust in the BPA’s role as an oversight body.
4. Next Steps if BPA Fails to Act
If the BPA fails to address these concerns satisfactorily, I will escalate this matter to:
• The DVLA, to report the BPA’s failure to enforce its members’ requirement to keep proof of actual posting of notices, which is necessary to establish the presumption of delivery.
• My Member of Parliament (MP) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), to highlight BPA’s failure to enforce its own Code of Practice and to bring this matter to the attention of those processing the upcoming Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
• Relevant consumer rights and regulatory bodies, including the ICO if necessary.
I trust the BPA will handle this matter with the seriousness it warrants and look forward to your detailed response within 14 days. Should you require any further clarification, I am happy to provide it.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
You gave them 14 days to respond. Come back after 14 days have elapsed if no response by then.
Here is a draft complaint to the BPA about ParkingEye's failure to respond when you're ready:
Subject: Formal Complaint Against ParkingEye – Failure to Address Keeper Liability & Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
I am writing to formally escalate a complaint against ParkingEye Ltd regarding their failure to handle a formal complaint appropriately and their non-compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
1. Background of the Complaint
On [date], I submitted a formal complaint to ParkingEye regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number], issued in relation to vehicle [Vehicle Registration]. My complaint specifically raised concerns about their failure to issue a compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The basis of my complaint was:
• I never received the original NtK.
• ParkingEye's Reminder Notice did not comply with PoFA.
• ParkingEye failed to provide proof of posting (e.g., a Royal Mail Certificate of Posting) or proof of delivery (e.g., tracking or confirmation of receipt), which is required to establish whether the NtK was served in compliance with PoFA.
2. ParkingEye’s Inadequate Response & Breach of BPA Code
On [date of PE’s response], ParkingEye responded but failed to provide strict proof that the NtK was:
• Properly issued in compliance with PoFA.
• Served on the Keeper within the required statutory timeframe.
• Delivered via a traceable postal method to establish proper service.
Instead, they merely stated that correspondence was "issued" on specific dates and attempted to divert my complaint into their appeals process, which was wholly inappropriate. They also dismissed my concerns by blaming potential Royal Mail postal issues, which is neither a valid excuse nor an answer to the fundamental PoFA compliance concerns.
Given the inadequacy of their response, I followed up on [date of second email], reiterating the complaint and setting a clear 14-day deadline for response. ParkingEye has now failed to respond within this timeframe, which is a breach of:
• BPA’s Code of Practice on complaint handling, which requires operators to respond in a timely and professional manner.
• The general principles of fair and transparent treatment of motorists.
3. BPA’s Required Action
ParkingEye’s failure to respond in good faith and their refusal to engage with my legitimate concerns constitutes a procedural failure and a breach of BPA’s oversight responsibilities. Therefore, I request that the BPA:
• Investigate ParkingEye’s failure to provide proof of proper service of the NtK and their failure to handle formal complaints appropriately.
• Confirm whether ParkingEye’s practices align with the BPA’s requirements on handling formal complaints, particularly regarding compliance with PoFA.
• Direct ParkingEye to either provide the requested evidence or cease pursuing this charge, as they have failed to demonstrate PoFA compliance.
• Confirm what action will be taken against ParkingEye for non-compliance with BPA’s standards.
4. Supporting Documentation
I have attached:
• My original complaint to ParkingEye (dated [date]).
• ParkingEye’s inadequate response (dated [date]).
• My follow-up email (dated [date]) requesting a proper response.
I confirm that ParkingEye has failed to respond within 14 days.
Conclusion
ParkingEye’s failure to engage with formal complaints is not an isolated incident, and I expect the BPA to uphold its duty to ensure fair and professional complaint handling among its Accredited Operators. I request a formal update on this complaint, along with a timeline for resolution.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
Did they include an "Proof of posting" certificate? If not, respond with the following:
Subject: Follow-Up to Formal Complaint – Failure to Issue a Compliant Notice to Keeper (PCN: [PCN Number])
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Department,
Thank you for your response dated [date]. However, it does not adequately address the formal complaint raised regarding your failure to demonstrate compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Your response does not provide strict proof that the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was both issued, posted and delivered in compliance with PoFA requirements. Simply stating that correspondence was "issued" on specific dates does not suffice. To clarify, I require:
• A copy of the original NtK
• Proof of posting (e.g., a Royal Mail Certificate of Posting) or;
• Proof of delivery (e.g., tracking details or confirmation of receipt)
Without such proof, you cannot enforce keeper liability under PoFA.
Additionally, I must reiterate that this is a formal complaint, not an appeal. Referring me to your appeal process or claiming Royal Mail postal issues as a defence is irrelevant. If you cannot provide the requested proof, you must confirm in writing that keeper liability is unenforceable, and cease all further correspondence pursuing this charge.
If you fail to adequately address this complaint, I will escalate the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for investigation. I will also reference your procedural failings in any formal defence or counterclaim should you attempt to take this matter further.
I expect your response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
Make a formal complaint to ParkingEye highlighting that you did not receive the original NtK and that the Reminder Notice does not satisfy the legal requirements of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, which mandates that a Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Failure to Issue a Compliant Notice to Keeper (PCN: [PCN Number])
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Department,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the handling of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [PCN Number], issued in relation to vehicle registration [Vehicle Registration]. I have recently received a Reminder Notice, but I must make it clear that I did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you claim was sent.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am fully aware that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), you are required to serve a valid NtK within 14 days of the alleged parking event in order to transfer liability to the keeper. Since no NtK was received, your Reminder Notice does not meet the requirements of PoFA.
I now require strict proof that the original NtK was both issued and delivered in compliance with PoFA. This proof must include:
• A copy of the original NtK, and
Either:
• Proof of posting (such as a Royal Mail Certificate of Posting), or
•Proof of delivery (such as tracking details or confirmation of receipt).
For the avoidance of doubt, this is a formal complaint, not an appeal. I am not appealing the PCN at this stage, and any attempt to treat this complaint as an appeal would be inappropriate and contrary to my stated intent. I require the information requested in order to fully assess whether the Notice to Keeper you claim to have sent was compliant with PoFA.
Should you fail to provide strict proof of compliance with PoFA, you must acknowledge that keeper liability cannot be enforced, and I require confirmation that you will cease pursuing me, as the registered keeper, for this charge.
Please note that any continued pursuit of keeper liability without providing the requested proof will constitute a procedural failure on your part. I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and refer to it in any formal defence or counterclaim should you attempt to take this matter further.
I expect you to give this matter your immediate attention and provide a copy of the original NtK along with the requested evidence of its issuance and delivery.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper