Let's summarise the facts up to this point:
Initial appeal was submitted by the Keeper, denying driver identity and citing non-compliance with PoFA.
• ParkingEye's response (14 March) was not a rejection but a holding letter stating that the appeal was referred for further review because the Keeper had not named the driver.
• The Keeper has since sent a letter confirming they were also the driver, effectively waiving PoFA and shifting the appeal to focus on driver liability.
• No response has been received from ParkingEye since that update.
So, where does this leave the POPLA process?
1. ParkingEye has not yet issued a POPLA code, which they are required to do if they reject an appeal.
2. The 28-day deadline for responding to an appeal only applies once the appeal is considered complete (i.e., with all requested information).
3. The driver's letter providing identity completed the appeal submission — so the clock likely restarted from that date.
4. Assuming the driver’s identity letter was received shortly after 14 March, ParkingEye has until around 18 April to respond before the appeal is deemed timed out and considered accepted by default under the PPSCoP.
You have two options, depending on how proactive you wish to be:
Option 1: Wait Until 28 Days from the Driver Identity LetterUnder Section 8.4.1(b) of the PPSCoP v1.1, ParkingEye must either:
• Respond to the completed appeal within 28 days of receipt, or
• Send a holding response within 28 days, confirming receipt and giving a timeline for their full reply.
If ParkingEye fails to do either, they will be in breach of the Code of Practice.
Once 28 days have passed (likely by mid-April), the driver may then:
• Send a formal complaint to ParkingEye referencing the breach; and
• Escalate the matter to the BPA and DVLA if ParkingEye continues to pursue the charge improperly.
Option 2: Prompt ParkingEye Now With a Reminder of Their Obligations
If the driver prefers to act before the 28-day period expires, the following letter is appropriate:
Subject: Request for Appeal Response – PCN [reference number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write further to your letter dated 14th March 2025 and my response dated [insert date driver identified themselves], in which I confirmed that I was the driver on the date of the alleged contravention.
Since that time, I have received no further correspondence from you. I now remind you of your obligation under Section 8.4.1(b) of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires that:
“The operator must respond to an appeal within 28 days of receipt or, if it is unable to provide a full response within this time, it must write to the appellant within 28 days to confirm receipt and provide an anticipated timescale for response.”
Please confirm whether my appeal has been accepted or rejected. If rejected, you must provide a valid POPLA verification code so I may refer the matter to independent appeal.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Address]
So did you appeal as the Keeper and not identified the driver? I am not absolutely clear whether you are the Keeper and you are appealing as the Keeper because you were not the driver, or whether your friend is the Keeper and a different driver is the subject of this.
I really hope you or your friend or whoever sent the appeal didn't just attach some random photos of the knee as "evidence" of the drivers disability. I already told you that a photo of the knee or a brace is not going to do the job!!!
The response from ParkingEye is a standard template letter that appears to:
• Ignore the content of the appeal, especially the detailed explanation regarding the driver’s disability;
• Misstate PoFA by citing Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(b) while ignoring the requirement for full compliance under 9(2)(f)–(h) to establish Keeper liability;
• Attempt to shift liability onto the Keeper without addressing the failure to form a contract or their duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010;
• Omit any reference to the Equality Act or the supplied medical evidence, which suggests the appeal was not meaningfully considered.
However, evidencing a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 requires more than a photo of a scar or brace. For the mitigation to be properly considered under the Equality Act, the Keeper (on behalf of the driver) should ideally provide a written statement from a medical professional, such as:
• A GP or consultant’s letter stating the nature and duration of the impairment;
• Confirmation that the condition substantially affects the driver’s mobility;
• A statement indicating that the condition is long-term and meets the statutory definition of a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/6).
The strongest grounds lie in the Equality Act mitigation, and it is strategically cleaner for the Keeper to now name the driver and transfer liability, since:
• The Equality Act defence only applies to the driver, and
• POPLA (or any future court claim) would require evidence of the driver’s protected characteristic, which the Keeper cannot assert on their own account.
This is my suggested response to the letter from ParkingEye:
Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert Reference]
Date of Issue: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to your recent correspondence, I now confirm the identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged incident.
The full name and current address for service of the driver is:
[Full Name of Driver]
[Driver’s Postal Address]
In accordance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I am no longer liable for this Parking Charge Notice, and you are now required to pursue the driver directly.
For the avoidance of doubt, this transfer of liability is made within the applicable time limits set out in Schedule 4, and the information provided is accurate. Please confirm that I will receive no further correspondence regarding this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name of Keeper]
Registered Keeper
This shifts the matter to the driver, allowing the full Equality Act mitigation to be developed on their behalf in any subsequent appeal. The driver can then prepare a disability-based mitigation case supported by GP evidence, if necessary.
The driver’s condition is classed as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 (EA).
Under Section 6 of the EA 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In this case:
• Physical impairment: The driver has a replacement knee, relies on a walking stick, and is awaiting another knee replacement.
• Substantial effect: Mobility is clearly restricted, impacting normal activities like walking and standing.
• Long-term: The condition is ongoing, with further medical intervention planned. A condition lasting 12 months or more qualifies as long-term.
Application under the EA 2010:
• The driver meets the definition of disability under the Act.
• This means they are entitled to reasonable adjustments, such as adequate disabled parking provisions and exemptions from unfair penalties where mobility limitations are a factor.
As this is related to a private parking charge, ParkingEye has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, and failure to do so amounts to disability discrimination.