Why on earth would you want to admit any liability? Do you want to throw away £20 just because of their faulty systems?
Regarding the PoFA compliance issue... I have discussed this at length with a District Judge and it was agreed that any failure to comply with all the requirements of PoFA invalidates Keeper liability. The fact that PE and all the other PPCs that do not include an invitation to the Keeper to pay for the charge, ignore the fact that they have not complied with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) is irrelevant. I have been pushing this argument for well over a year now.
The fact that POPLA have not yet acknowledged a failure of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) is simply down to the fact that they have not yet had to refer to that point in any appeal and have upheld the appeals on other points. When it comes to making the point in a POPLA appeal, in order to overcome the intellectual malnourishment of some of the assessors, they need to be led by the nose to the reason why the NtK has failed PoFA.
The fact that it has not been argued in court is because I have not yet had a single claim that I am advising on ever reach an actual hearing with every one either being discontinued or struck out, without the need for a WS that includes the PoFA failure to be argued.
Here is the full explanation of why a ParkingEye NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i):
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), 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.
The operator 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.
The operator 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.
Please show me a ParkingEye NtK that specifically invites (or any synonym of the word) the Keeper to pay the charge. Their NtKs only invite the driver to pay the charge.
Also, what are the chances of losing the dispute?
Trying to predict a person's chances of success is a risky business. We can present you with the options, and how to pursue them, but ultimately it's your money and time at stake, not ours, so it's your call based on the information you've received and your attitude to risk.
ParkingEye will reject almost any appeal, simply because they can. The next stage after that is POPLA, where one has a better chance - they do make some odd decisions at times, particularly with PoFA fails that are less 'obvious' (an example of what I'm terming an 'obvious' failure would be delivering the notice too late, for example). If you lose there, the result is not binding on you, and you could wait to see if they decided to take court action (small claims) and seek to defend the matter there.
how do you know that they charge £20 for a minor keying error?
jfollows is referring to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1_140824.pdf). 6.3 and Annex F cover keying errors. In terms of 'proving it', they should have an ANPR log - if you know what character was erroneously input, then they should be able to compare that incorrect VRM against their log. Interestingly, on this point, the CoP says:
"Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors. This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying errors.
I don't see why their terminal couldn't be synced to the ANPR system and bring up an warning if a driver tries to enter a VRM that has not been picked up by the ANPR system.