ParkingEye were clearly advised in both the initial appeal and again in the POPLA appeal that their Notice to Hirer was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and that they therefore had no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. They ignored that point at the time, but have now confirmed in their own evidence pack, on the 6th page, that this Parking Charge was not issued under PoFA. This confirms that they cannot rely on any provisions under that statute to transfer liability. That leaves only one possible liable party: the driver. However, ParkingEye have provided no evidence whatsoever to show who the driver was. There is no identification, no admission, and no photographic or documentary evidence that points to the Hirer being the driver.
The law is absolutely clear on this. In the absence of a valid PoFA notice, liability cannot be transferred. Furthermore, there is no legal presumption that a Hirer or Keeper was the driver, and courts have repeatedly confirmed that no such assumption can be made. In the case of VCS v Edward (2023), a Circuit Judge ruled that a parking company cannot rely on any presumption or even the balance of probabilities to argue that the registered keeper—or, by extension, the hirer—was the driver. That same principle applies here. POPLA is reminded that unless the operator can show actual proof of who was driving, they cannot pursue anyone else. As ParkingEye have chosen not to rely on PoFA and cannot identify the driver, there is no lawful basis for this charge to be upheld.
A key issue raised in the appeal was whether the terms on the signage are supported by the landowner’s authority. ParkingEye have now provided a letter of authority dated 9th September 2021 from ASDA Stores Ltd. That letter confirms a single parking restriction: a maximum stay of 3 hours, plus a redacted grace period. It makes no reference whatsoever to any one-hour restriction between 9pm and 7am, and no mention at all of reduced time limits on match days or event days. This is important because ParkingEye’s signage imposes additional restrictions that are not backed up by the landowner’s agreement. They are enforcing terms that do not form part of the landowner’s authorisation and have provided no contract variation or updated agreement to justify these extra restrictions. POPLA is reminded that an operator cannot enforce parking terms that exceed what the landowner has permitted.
In addition to this, ParkingEye have ignored the point made in the appeal about the vagueness of the signage. The signs refer to “match day” or “event day” rules without defining those terms or providing any way for a motorist to know when those rules apply. There is no calendar, no on-site notice, and nothing to tell a driver whether reduced time limits are in effect on any given day. This creates uncertainty and confusion, and fails the requirement for clear and transparent terms. ParkingEye have not responded to this issue at all and have given no explanation as to how a motorist would be expected to interpret or comply with those ambiguous restrictions.
In conclusion, ParkingEye have failed to rebut the core grounds of the appeal. They have now admitted that PoFA does not apply, confirming that they cannot hold the Hirer liable. They have provided no evidence of who was driving and have ignored binding case law that prevents any assumption being made. They have also failed to demonstrate that the signage terms they are enforcing were authorised by the landowner, and have not addressed the serious ambiguity in those signs. As such, the operator has not met the burden of proof and the appeal must be allowed.
You are under absolutely no legal obligation to evidence that you were or were not the driver. They already know that you were the Keeper because they obtained your DVLA data from your V5C.
Don't overthink this. Just send what you have been advised to do.
Here it is amended and an extra point of appeal added:QuotePOPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, Ambiguous Signage, and No Evidence of Landowner Authority
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)
To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”
In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.
As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.
Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted
As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.
There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.
As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.
3. Signage – Ambiguous and Unenforceable Terms
The signage at the site makes reference to different conditions on a “match day” or “event day,” yet provides no explanation or definition of what qualifies as a “match” or “event,” nor does it indicate how a motorist is supposed to identify such days.
There is no calendar, noticeboard, or real-time information provided on site. The ordinary motorist — the reasonable person — cannot be expected to research third-party sports fixtures or event schedules online to determine whether enhanced restrictions apply.
This renders the term “match day” vague, ambiguous, and incapable of forming a clear and enforceable contract. This is contrary to the requirement that all contractual terms be communicated transparently and unambiguously before a contract can be said to have been accepted.
This is particularly important in the context of parking charges, which carry an element of penalty. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent and transparent signage in forming enforceable parking contracts.
In this case, the signage fails to:• Define a key term (“match day”),
• Indicate when that term applies,
• Offer any clear method for determining whether additional restrictions are active.
Consequently, any term reliant on this ambiguity fails the test of fairness and transparency under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
4. The operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority or signage validity
Parking Eye is put to strict proof that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner. POPLA is respectfully reminded that the burden of proof lies with the operator. It is not sufficient for the operator merely to assert that it has authority.
Accordingly, I require that POPLA compel the operator to produce:• A full and unredacted copy of the contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner;
• Evidence that the contract specifically allows Parking Eye to issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name and to take legal action to enforce them;
• Proof that the signage relied upon — particularly any referencing "match day" restrictions — formed part of the landowner’s authorisation;
• Confirmation that there have been no material changes to the signage, site layout, or contractual terms since the date of that agreement, or evidence that any such changes were approved by the landowner.
If the operator fails to provide this evidence, then it has no standing and no legal authority to pursue this charge.
Conclusion• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
• The signage is ambiguous, particularly in relation to undefined “match day” or “event day” restrictions. These terms are unclear, not time-specific, and cannot be reasonably understood by a typical motorist without external research, rendering them incapable of forming a fair and transparent contract.
• The operator has failed to provide evidence of landowner authority, and no contract has been shown that demonstrates the signage relied upon forms part of the landowner’s authorisation, nor that any material changes have been approved.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.
POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, Ambiguous Signage, and No Evidence of Landowner Authority
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)
To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”
In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.
As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.
Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted
As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.
There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.
As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.
3. Signage – Ambiguous and Unenforceable Terms
The signage at the site makes reference to different conditions on a “match day” or “event day,” yet provides no explanation or definition of what qualifies as a “match” or “event,” nor does it indicate how a motorist is supposed to identify such days.
There is no calendar, noticeboard, or real-time information provided on site. The ordinary motorist — the reasonable person — cannot be expected to research third-party sports fixtures or event schedules online to determine whether enhanced restrictions apply.
This renders the term “match day” vague, ambiguous, and incapable of forming a clear and enforceable contract. This is contrary to the requirement that all contractual terms be communicated transparently and unambiguously before a contract can be said to have been accepted.
This is particularly important in the context of parking charges, which carry an element of penalty. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent and transparent signage in forming enforceable parking contracts.
In this case, the signage fails to:• Define a key term (“match day”),
• Indicate when that term applies,
• Offer any clear method for determining whether additional restrictions are active.
Consequently, any term reliant on this ambiguity fails the test of fairness and transparency under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
4. The operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority or signage validity
Parking Eye is put to strict proof that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner. POPLA is respectfully reminded that the burden of proof lies with the operator. It is not sufficient for the operator merely to assert that it has authority.
Accordingly, I require that POPLA compel the operator to produce:• A full and unredacted copy of the contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner;
• Evidence that the contract specifically allows Parking Eye to issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name and to take legal action to enforce them;
• Proof that the signage relied upon — particularly any referencing "match day" restrictions — formed part of the landowner’s authorisation;
• Confirmation that there have been no material changes to the signage, site layout, or contractual terms since the date of that agreement, or evidence that any such changes were approved by the landowner.
If the operator fails to provide this evidence, then it has no standing and no legal authority to pursue this charge.
Conclusion• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
• The signage is ambiguous, particularly in relation to undefined “match day” or “event day” restrictions. These terms are unclear, not time-specific, and cannot be reasonably understood by a typical motorist without external research, rendering them incapable of forming a fair and transparent contract.
• The operator has failed to provide evidence of landowner authority, and no contract has been shown that demonstrates the signage relied upon forms part of the landowner’s authorisation, nor that any material changes have been approved.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.
HC... Aside from the fact that it isn't a penalty charge notice, I'm not sure I agree with that approach.
In an ideal world, where POPLA were fit for purpose, it would work. In the real world, where they are not, they won't consider points that are not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, talking them through what would have to have happened for the operator to have been able to hold the hirer liable, then explaining why that hasn't happened here, is in my view more likely to succeed.
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Parking Eye as the Hirer on the following grounds:
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14. To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:
A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.
Parking Eye has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
Given the failure to comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
Additionally, the signs display in the car park, parking restrictions during Match days. How is the average person expected to know what qualifies as a match or event day, and then expected to know the dates and time of when such Matches or events are held? The ambiguous phrase ‘Match day’ or ‘Event’ cannot be reasonably understood without external knowledge.
Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference] – Response to your letter dated 2 April 2025
Dear ParkingEye,
Thank you for your most recent letter, the contents of which serve only to confirm that you have not read – or worse, have not understood – my original appeal.
Nowhere did I state that I was “not the driver.” I stated that I am the hirer of the vehicle. That is all you need to know. There is no legal obligation whatsoever—under statute or otherwise—for the Hirer to identify the driver to a private company such as yours. You are not a statutory authority, and the law does not grant you powers to demand such information. I further pointed out your statutory failings under Paragraph 14 of PoFA, which preclude you from pursuing the Hirer for this charge.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was forced to select “I am not the driver” when using your deeply flawed online appeal portal, which does not allow an appeal to proceed unless one of your rigid categories is selected. This restriction is a textbook abuse of process. If you now intend to rely on that coerced selection to misrepresent my position, then you are being both dishonest and disingenuous. I made it absolutely clear in my original appeal that I do not admit to being the driver and I have never made such an admission. If you wish to play silly buggers by mischaracterising webform checkboxes instead of addressing the statutory defects in your Notice to Hirer, then I refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Instead of addressing the PoFA compliance issues I raised – such as your failure to include copies of all the documents required under Paragraph 13(2), or to serve a Notice to Hirer that satisfies Paragraph 14(5) – you have responded with a generic and irrelevant template letter demanding “evidence” that I have never been under any obligation to provide.
The law does not require me to assist you in correcting your procedural incompetence. Your legal right to recover this charge depends on strict compliance with the statutory conditions. You have not complied with them. That is the end of the matter.
I therefore repeat my expectation that you cancel this charge. If you decline to do so, then you must provide a POPLA code. I will not be entering into further debate about legal points you do not appear to understand.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name of Hirer]
Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference] – Response to your letter dated 2 April 2025
Dear ParkingEye,
Thank you for your most recent letter, the contents of which serve only to confirm that you have not read – or worse, have not understood – my original appeal.
Nowhere did I state that I was “not the driver.” I stated that I am the hirer of the vehicle. That is all you need to know. There is no legal obligation whatsoever—under statute or otherwise—for the Hirer to identify the driver to a private company such as yours. You are not a statutory authority, and the law does not grant you powers to demand such information. I further pointed out your statutory failings under Paragraph 14 of PoFA, which preclude you from pursuing the Hirer for this charge.
Instead of addressing the PoFA compliance issues I raised – such as your failure to include copies of all the documents required under Paragraph 13(2), or to serve a Notice to Hirer that satisfies Paragraph 14(5) – you have responded with a generic and irrelevant template letter demanding “evidence” that I have never been under any obligation to provide.
The law does not require me to assist you in correcting your procedural incompetence. Your legal right to recover this charge depends on strict compliance with the statutory conditions. You have not complied with them. That is the end of the matter.
I therefore repeat my expectation that you cancel this charge. If you decline to do so, then you must provide a POPLA code. I will not be entering into further debate about legal points you do not appear to understand.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name of Hirer]
Why have you redacted all the dates and times on the NtH? No one can give proper advice if you redact all the crucial information. Leave ALL dates and times visible on the notices!!!!!!
I have no idea - in-case it gives anything away I guess ;D
Shall I go old school and appeal by post? (recorded delivery?)No - do it online, it's free!
Also, if you ever send anything about these sort of charges by post, don't do it recorded. If the recipient declines to sign for the delivery, or it doesn't arrive for any other reason, all you're left with is proof your letter was not delivered. If you send it standard first class with a free certificate of posting, you enjoy a presumption of delivery.
But, in general, if you can do things online or by email it's sensible to do so.
Shall I go old school and appeal by post? (recorded delivery?)No - do it online, it's free!
Why have you redacted all the dates and times on the NtH? No one can give proper advice if you redact all the crucial information. Leave ALL dates and times visible on the notices!!!!!!
In which case, this should do the trick.Dear Sirs,
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):
- A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
- A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you do not cancel the charge, you must provide a POPLA code.
Yours
If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.
Dear Sirs,
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):
- A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
- A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you do not cancel the charge, you must provide a POPLA code.
Yours
If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.
Thanks guys - the postman has just been and ....it has arrived.For completeness, can you show us?
Before I do anything, the Keeper has said in one of the digital letters, that I must include the attachment in my appeal. Why is this?Because they have a poor understanding of the process. If the notice you have now received is addressed to you, then you are not a third party, and thus don't need 'authorisation' from anyone.
In which case, you need to confirm with the lease company that they have passed on your details to ParkingEye as the hirer.
One of their emails says they will, but it's well worth confirming.
You should then receive your own notice from ParkingEye, which you can then appeal.
Dare I ask why the government aren't trying to halt these companies?Private Parking (Regulator) Bill (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3705)
Why do these disgusting companies exist? >:((https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMzUwNGJ4OHRmcXpoODM2d2gzdnNuZXdrOGIwejR4bHhndmF4dHNqbSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/26FPLMDDN5fJCir0A/giphy.gif)