Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: samsungasong on January 25, 2025, 01:18:28 pm
-
APPEAL UPHELD!!!!
Thank-you very much to all who helped on this thread. You are all wonderful people.
POPLA Decison...
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator is pursuing x as the driver of the vehicle. However, having viewed both the appellant’s appeal to POPLA and to the operator it is clear that the appellant has declined the invitation to name the driver and there is no driver admission in either appeal. When pursuing the PCN it is clear that the operator has not used PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the keeper in the instance where the driver has not been identified. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified by the registered keeper, the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper as the driver for the PCN. Therefore, the PCN is invalid. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As highlighted above the operator is not pursuing the relevant party and therefore, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
-
Copy and paste the following into the POPLA response webform:
ParkingEye has now confirmed in their own evidence that this Parking Charge Notice was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This is explicitly stated on page 2 of their evidence pack, where they state: “Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA – Issued To: Keeper”, and again on page 6: “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.” This admission confirms that there is no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
The operator has not provided any evidence to show who was driving the vehicle. The keeper has not been identified as the driver and there is no presumption in law that the keeper and driver are the same person. This has been clarified in the persuasive County Court judgment of VCS v Edward (2023), which ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut.
Since ParkingEye has not complied with PoFA and has not identified the driver, they have no lawful authority to pursue the keeper for this charge.
In addition, ParkingEye has failed to address the misleading and contradictory statement on the front of the Notice to Keeper, which demands payment “within 28 days of the date issued.” This contradicts the correct timeline under PoFA, which is 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is deemed “given.” Although ParkingEye has admitted the notice is not PoFA compliant, this misleading demand still creates confusion and demonstrates a failure to meet the standards of clarity required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
ParkingEye has also failed to provide a contemporaneous, unredacted landowner contract that proves they were authorised to issue and enforce parking charges at this site on the material date. A general statement that authority exists is not sufficient. The appeal pointed out that any material changes to the parking terms, such as the free period, must be explicitly reflected in the contract. ParkingEye has not addressed this requirement or provided the specific contract terms that allow them to enforce the signage displayed.
None of the appellant’s key points have been rebutted. Instead, ParkingEye has now confirmed that keeper liability under PoFA does not apply. As there is no evidence of who the driver was and the operator is not relying on PoFA, this charge must be cancelled.
-
My full appeal....
As the registered keeper, this is an appeal against the Parking Charge Notice PCN issued by ParkingEye for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions in Home Bargains car park, on 9th January 2025.
For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.
Summary of appeal:
1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability
2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver
3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage
4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority
________________________________________
1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability
ParkingEye claims that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, a close analysis of the notice demonstrates that it is not fully compliant with PoFA, and since compliance must be absolute for Keeper liability to apply, this means the operator has no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for the charge.
Just as a person cannot be “a bit pregnant,” a Notice to Keeper cannot be “a bit PoFA compliant.” It either fully complies with ALL statutory requirements, or it does not—and in this case, it does not.
The two primary failures of PoFA compliance in this NtK are:
(i) Failure to Include a Mandatory Invitation for the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states that a Notice to Keeper must:
“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the creditor with a statement.”
However, this NtK does not include an explicit invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. Instead, it merely states that:
• If the Keeper was not the driver, they should provide the driver’s details.
• The Keeper should pass the notice to the driver.
This omission is crucial because PoFA does not allow for any inferred obligation on the Keeper to pay the charge. The law requires an explicit invitation to do so. ParkingEye’s NtK does not contain such an invitation, meaning it fails to FULLY comply with PoFA. Since the statutory test is absolute (full) compliance, this failure alone voids Keeper liability.
(ii) Contradictory and Misleading Payment Deadline – PoFA 9(2)(f) and 9(6)
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that an NtK must:
"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—"
This means the correct timeline for liability and payment under PoFA is:
• The NtK is issued on Day 0.
• It is deemed “given” (received) on Day 2 (two working days later, per PoFA 9(6)).
• The Keeper has 28 full days starting from Day 3 before any liability can arise.
However, the front of the NtK states in large, bold text:
"PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100.00 PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED."
This is factually incorrect and legally misleading because:
• The demand for payment begins from the issue date, rather than from the day after the date the notice is given.
• The correct timeline under PoFA starts from the day after the notice is given, meaning ParkingEye is demanding payment before it is legally due under PoFA.
This is not a minor mistake. It is a fundamental contradiction that invalidates Keeper liability because ParkingEye’s demand is unlawful and unenforceable under PoFA.
Even if the correct PoFA wording does appear somewhere on the back of the notice, this does not resolve the contradiction. The fact that two conflicting payment deadlines exist on the same notice creates legal uncertainty, which cannot be resolved in ParkingEye’s favour. A document that is legally flawed on its face cannot be “rescued” by contradictory small print.
The bold, prominent wording on the front of the NtK is incorrect and in direct contradiction with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), which states:
"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected."
By stating "PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED," ParkingEye’s NtK:
• Misleads the recipient into believing that payment is due earlier than legally required.
• Conflicts with the back of the notice, which attempts to apply the correct PoFA timeline.
• Breaches PPSCoP, invalidating the entire PCN.
Since compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP must be absolute, this flawed notice cannot be relied upon to transfer liability to the Keeper.
________________________________________
2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver
Even if ParkingEye had issued a fully PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) (which they have not), they have provided no evidence that the Keeper was the driver on the day in question.
The legal position is clear: keeper liability is entirely separate from driver liability. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) only allows an operator to hold the Keeper liable if the NtK is FULLY compliant with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4. Since ParkingEye has failed to fully comply with PoFA in multiple ways as shown in section 1 above, the only person who could be liable is the driver.
However, ParkingEye has provided no evidence as to who that driver was.
The Operator Cannot Simply Infer the Keeper was Driving
ParkingEye cannot simply infer or assume that the registered Keeper was the driver. Neither can the POPLA assessor. There is no legal presumption in PoFA or civil contract law that the Keeper and the driver are the same person. PoFA does not place any obligation on the Keeper to disclose the identity of the driver, nor does it allow the operator to transfer liability without either full compliance with PoFA or direct proof of driver identity.
The only way ParkingEye could prove that the Keeper was also the driver is if the Keeper voluntarily admitted to being the driver. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to do so, and in this case, has not done so.
In the persuasive appellate court ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], HHJ Gargan explicitly stated in his conclusion at paragraph 35.3:
"It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers [who] are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. Or there may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of both family cars and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their spouse regularly drives the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion."
This ruling destroys any argument that ParkingEye or POPLA can simply “infer or assume” on the balance of probability that the Keeper was also the driver. The judgment confirms that there are multiple realistic scenarios in which the Keeper was not the driver, and unless ParkingEye can provide actual evidence (such as a direct admission from the Keeper), no such inference can be drawn.
This ruling is has already been relied upon in multiple parking-related cases at the County Court level. If ParkingEye were to escalate this matter to court, they would struggle to argue against this ruling, as it provides a clear, logical, and legally sound analysis of why simply being the Keeper does not equate to being the driver.
Since ParkingEye has failed to establish Keeper liability under PoFA, and the Keeper has not admitted to being the driver, they have no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for this charge.
The appeal must therefore be upheld.
________________________________________
3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage
The signage at this car park is unclear, poorly presented, and fails to form a contract in line with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
• The charge amount is not prominently displayed, and key terms are buried in dense text.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms to be fair and transparent—this signage fails that test.
Since no valid contract can be formed, no charge is payable.
________________________________________
4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority
ParkingEye is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, up-to-date contract with the landowner that grants them the right to issue parking charges at this location.
The burden of proof is on the operator to establish that they have landowner authority, and it is a requirement under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 7.1.1, which states:
"The parking operator must have written authority from the landowner (or their appointed agent) that provides clear authorisation to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement (including issuing and enforcing parking charges) on the land in question."
Furthermore, PPSCoP Section 7.1.3 requires that:
"The written authority must include the duration of the contract and any conditions or restrictions placed on parking enforcement and operational activity, including any changes to the terms of parking applicable to drivers."
The key point here is that any changes to the terms and conditions for drivers must be reflected in the landowner contract.
The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that the Landowner Contract is Valid and Reflects Any Changes to the Parking Terms
It is entirely possible—if not likely—that the terms and conditions of parking for drivers at this location have materially changed since the original landowner contract with ParkingEye was agreed.
For example, but not limited to:
• The maximum free parking period may have changed (e.g., from 2 hours to 90 minutes).
• The parking charge amount may have increased.
• Additional restrictions may have been introduced that were not originally permitted under the landowner agreement.
If any of these types of changes have occurred, ParkingEye must prove that the landowner contract was amended to reflect these changes. A mere signed witness statement from ParkingEye does not satisfy this requirement. The operator must provide a contemporaneous, unredacted contract that:
1. Covers the exact terms in place on the date of the alleged contravention.
2. Explicitly authorises ParkingEye to issue parking charges under the precise terms that appear on the signage.
3. Confirms that the landowner has agreed to any subsequent amendments to the parking conditions.
If ParkingEye fails to provide concrete documentary evidence that their contract fully aligns with the parking terms on the signage, then their authority to issue this PCN is void.
Some POPLA assessors have previously used the flawed reasoning that because the operator’s signage remains in place, this somehow means that the landowner contract must still be valid. This is not a legally sound argument and completely ignores the possibility that the terms and conditions for drivers may have materially changed, while the landowner contract has not been updated to reflect those changes.
There could be multiple reasons why an operator’s signage remaining in place does not confirm that the underlying landowner contract is still legally valid:
• The terms of parking for drivers may have changed, such as a reduction in the maximum stay period, an increase in the parking charge, or the introduction of additional restrictions (e.g., a change in grace periods). If these changes were not incorporated into the landowner contract, then ParkingEye has no legal authority to enforce those new terms.
• The landowner may not have actively reviewed or updated the contract, meaning the terms ParkingEye is enforcing do not match what was originally agreed upon.
• The contract may have expired and simply not been renewed, yet the operator continues enforcement under outdated terms.
• The landowner may be unaware that the operator has made unilateral changes to the enforcement policy, such as altering consideration or grace periods or modifying charges without obtaining explicit landowner approval.
The list is not exhaustive. If the contract does not explicitly authorise ParkingEye to enforce the precise parking terms currently displayed on the signage, then their entire enforcement action is invalid.
It is not enough for the operator or POPLA to say, “the landowner allows signs to remain”. That does not prove that the actual contractual authority is still valid and reflective of the current driver terms and conditions.
For these reasons, ParkingEye is put to strict proof that a valid, up-to-date contract exists that authorises them to issue charges under the exact terms displayed on the signage at the time of the alleged contravention. If they fail to provide this, then POPLA must allow this appeal and instruct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is invalid and must be cancelled due to multiple critical failures by ParkingEye:
1. Failure to Fully Comply with PoFA – The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, meaning Keeper liability cannot apply. Just as a person cannot be “a bit pregnant,” an NtK cannot be “a bit” PoFA-compliant. ParkingEye’s PoFA failures are clearly identified and render the charge unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – ParkingEye has provided zero proof of driver identity, and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to disclose this information. The persuasive ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) confirms that it is not appropriate to infer that a Keeper was the driver. Without such proof, ParkingEye has no legal basis to pursue the charge.
3. Misleading and Contradictory Payment Deadline – The NtK falsely demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, contradicting PoFA 9(2)(f) and 9(6) and breaching PPSCoP 8.1.2(e). This misleading demand invalidates the charge.
4. Unclear and Inadequate Signage – The signage fails the Beavis transparency test, with key terms buried in dense text and failing to establish a fair contract with the driver.
5. No Proof of Valid Landowner Authority – The operator is put to strict proof that its contract with the landowner is valid, up-to-date, and reflects any changes to the driver terms and conditions. A mere signed statement is not sufficient.
Given these fatal flaws, ParkingEye has no legal basis to pursue the Keeper or enforce this charge. POPLA must uphold this appeal and instruct ParkingEye to cancel the PCN immediately.
-
Please show us precisely what you put in your POPLA appeal.
As for their evidence pack, it is mostly boilerplate stuff. Just because there is a lot of it doesn't mean a thing. As long as the driver has not been identified, they have nowhere to go with this as long as your appeal didn't give it away.
SO, please show the original appeal so we can see if any of the points raised in the appeal have not been answered or rebutted and we can also use their evidence pack against them.
You only have 7 days from the date they sent you their evidence to respond.
-
Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless..
Of course it's lengthy!
They have to show that they're entitled to manage the site on behalf of the landowner, that they may raise parking charges in their own name and pursue the same, that the Ts and Cs are made clear in accordance with BPA and legal requirements and that these were breached by the DRIVER of VRM ABC123.
All pretty standard stuff.
But this isn't the point.
They have to prove that you're involved and may be pursued as registered keeper, or hirer or driver.
As RK - to do which the PCN must comply with para. 4 of the Schedule to PoFA. But it doesn't.
As hirer - to do which they have to prove that the registered keeper has relieved themselves of liability under paras. 4(7) and that they have issued a Notice to Hirer in conformity with para. 14. But they haven't.
Driver - they have no proof, only perhaps supposition and wishful thinking.
crossed with b789...but where's their evidence pack?
Thanks for your response. Can I use what you say as my response then?
-
The NtK you received was a non-PoFA compliant version and this is now admitted in their evidence pack on page 2:
"20/01/2025 DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To:
Keeper)"
and again here on page 6:
"Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."
So, please clarify whether you have already made an appeal to POPLA or not. If you have, and this is their evidence pack in response, you only have 7 days to respond/rebut.
Hi,
I have already made the appeal after searching this forum and found a scenario similar to mine, so I copied and pasted an appeal template to use as mine. Yes, this is their evidence pack so now I am wondering what my wording should be in response.
Thanks
-
Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless..
Of course it's lengthy!
They have to show that they're entitled to manage the site on behalf of the landowner, that they may raise parking charges in their own name and pursue the same, that the Ts and Cs are made clear in accordance with BPA and legal requirements and that these were breached by the DRIVER of VRM ABC123.
All pretty standard stuff.
But this isn't the point.
They have to prove that you're involved and may be pursued as registered keeper, or hirer or driver.
As RK - to do which the PCN must comply with para. 4 of the Schedule to PoFA. But it doesn't.
As hirer - to do which they have to prove that the registered keeper has relieved themselves of liability under paras. 4(7) and that they have issued a Notice to Hirer in conformity with para. 14. But they haven't.
Driver - they have no proof, only perhaps supposition and wishful thinking.
crossed with b789...but where's their evidence pack?
-
The NtK you received was a non-PoFA compliant version and this is now admitted in their evidence pack on page 2:
"20/01/2025 DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To:
Keeper)"
and again here on page 6:
"Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."
So, please clarify whether you have already made an appeal to POPLA or not. If you have, and this is their evidence pack in response, you only have 7 days to respond/rebut.
-
Have you submitted anything to POPLA yet? I am wondering how come you have received an operators evidence pack. this is only received after a POPLA appeal has been submitted.
-
Please host the operator evidence, suitably redacted, either on DropBox or Google Drive. I refuse to download any more large PDF files.
Remember, if you don't want to be a victim of identity theft, you may want to redact any personal info before you make it available for public consumption.
-
Hi,
I searched this forum and used what I thought was a similar scenario to mine to copy and paste into my POPLA appeal. I have received a response from POPLA saying I have 7 days to respond to PARKING EYE's evidence. Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless. I think everything regarding the POPLA appeal that I have sent in is in the longer document so you can see what I have responded with.
Can anybody please advise as to a possible response to PARKING EYE's evidence?
-
Hi,
Could anybody help me with the wording of my POPLA appeal please?
Thanks
-
Ok, I understand a bit more now and I will wait a few days to see if anybody can assist further as you suggest.
Thanks once again for your advice.
-
Your POPLA appeal will also require the operator to evidence the actual date the NtK entered the postal system as required by the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2.
You will have to explain to he POPLA assessor that a copy of a receipt from their mail consolidator that the notice was received by hybrid email, is not evidence of the date it was actually entered into the postal system as required by the PPSCoP.
You will also need to point out why their NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and therefore cannot hold the Keeper liable.
There are plenty of POPLA appeals you can search for on here and I'm sure other regulars on here can help you put your POPLA appeal together.
-
On review of this thread, the back of the NtK you showed us is a cause for concern. Can you 100% confirm that that is the back of the original NtK or is it the back of the reminder NtK that you received.
This is crucial information and you need to double check as whatever in on the back of the reminder is totally irrelevant. So, go double check and confirm whether my suspicion is correct and you showed us the back of the reminder and not the original NtK.
Hi,
The back of the NTK is the original. I haven't had any reminders.
Thanks
-
Ok great, thanks again!
??
B789's post was a question...
-
Ok great, thanks again!
-
On review of this thread, the back of the NtK you showed us is a cause for concern. Can you 100% confirm that that is the back of the original NtK or is it the back of the reminder NtK that you received.
This is crucial information and you need to double check as whatever in on the back of the reminder is totally irrelevant. So, go double check and confirm whether my suspicion is correct and you showed us the back of the reminder and not the original NtK.
-
Your POPLA appeal needs to explicitly say why the PCN from Parking Eye does not comply with the legislation to hold you - the registered keeper - liable, rather than just saying it doesn’t. Others are better than I am in guiding you here, so just wait a few days for their input and advice.
-
Ok, will do.
Thanks again.
-
No.
Wait for more input.
-
Thanks for your quick reply.
In my POPLA appeal, when you say go into detail; shall I just copy and paste my responses to Parkingeye? Will that be sufficient do you think?
-
You will submit an appeal to POPLA in which you specify in more detail why you as registered keeper can not be liable. Don’t worry, people here will help you first and don’t hurry, you have > 30 days to submit the appeal.
You should probably remove the POPLA code from your post (if you did). You need to know it, we don’t.
-
Hi,
I have just had the following response. Can you please advise on how to proceed next?
"04 March 2025 Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 448249/556550 POPLA Ref:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 09 January 2025 at 22:00, at Home Bargains, County Road car park. 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. Parkingeye are a member of the British Parking Association and can confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located and in line with the guidelines set out in the BPA Code of Practice. We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsmanservices.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above. Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals). As a gesture of goodwil, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you wil not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the ful value of the charge wi l be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you wil no longer be able to pay the discounted amount and the ful value of the charge wil be due. A payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference number on the reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated. If you have received this correspondence via email, please alow 24 hours for our systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated payment line or website. Yours faithfu ly, Parkingeye Team"
-
Great news. Thanks for your swift reply.
-
Subject: Parking Charge Notice - [Your PCN Reference]
Dear ParkingEye,
I decline to provide the information you have requested, as there is no legal obligation for me to do so when dealing with an unregulated private parking company.
Your Notice to Keeper contains a clear flaw that renders it non-compliant with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, you cannot hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this charge.
You may now either cancel the charge or issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
-
Do nothing, do not reply, they are fishing for the details of the driver.
In due course they reject your appeal but provide a POPLA code. Which is what you want. You will win at POPLA.
Come back here when they do.
-
Hi,
I have just received the following letter via email, the first response I have had since doing as advised above.
Should I respond to this please?
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 448249/556550 Dear Sir / Madam, Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 09 January 2025 at 22:00, at Home Bargains, County Road car park. We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we await further information. You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was. Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may we l be rejected and a POPLA code provided. Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below.
Yours faithfu ly, Parkingeye Team
-
Oh that is great news!
Thanks very much for your help.
I have submitted the appeal exactly as you advised.
-
Congratulations. You have a “Golden Ticket”...
Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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.
-
Apologies, I was unsure if the rest of it was relevant or not. I've attached the remaining part of the back.
Thanks for your response.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why have you chopped off the rest of the back of the Notice to Keeper? Please show the whole of the back. From the limited bit that I can see, I think you may have received something that is as rare "hens teeth".
It appears that ParkingEye are not relying on the provisions of PoFA to hold the Keeper table. However, I can only confirm that once the rest of the back of the NtK is shown.
-
Hi All,
Wondering if there is anything I could do to challenge the below please...
Received a PCN through the post 23rd Jan. Date of event 9th Jan. Date of PCN issue 20th Jan.
Driver was parked up from 21.35 -22.00 as it was a pre-arranged safe meeting place to collect child from a dance class nearby which overran slightly. It was dark and driver did not notice any signs regarding parking.
I haven't contacted Parkingeye so far.
Thanks in advance for any help or advice.
S
[attachment deleted by admin]