-
Please see reasoning;
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The driver has not been identified, no presumption of driver liability. • The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is not applicable as the land in question, Milton County Park, is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. 1. The land is not relevant land; the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified. • The driver has not been identified. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a byelaws document as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
-
Can you please share with us the assessor's reasoning?
-
Morning, I've just received a response from POPLA;
'Your appeal was successful'
'As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action'
Thank you all, really appreciate your assistance throughout.
Best regards.
-
b789 - again thanks for your help. I have submitted my comments to POPLA; 'We are writing to update you about your appeal.
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
Best Regards
-
I would advise amending this bit in section 1 of your response:
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.
to
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and the driver has not been identified. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.
Did you send or link to a copy of the byelaws when you made the appeal? If so, simply highlight in section 2 that a copy of those byelaws were provided with the initial appeal and the operator has not addressed this issue. Just because land is "private", does not mean that those byelaws do not apply.
Otherwise, good to go.
-
Hello, good morning everyone. Before I submit my post, I just wanted to ensure everything was okay with it, or does it need amending? If somebody could advise, would really appreciate it. I've got this far and I don't want to mess it up. Best regards.
-
Thanks again for your assistance on this matter, before I post, is something like this suitable;
I respectfully submit this response to the evidence provided by ParkingEye. Their submission fails to rebut the key legal grounds on which my appeal is based.
1. ParkingEye Confirm They Are Not Relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
ParkingEye clearly state in their evidence: “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
This is a crucial admission. If a private parking operator chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA, they cannot pursue the registered keeper for the charge if the driver has not been identified.
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.
2. The Land Is Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA
Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control through byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State on 2 May 1994. As such, the land falls outside the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1), which explicitly excludes land subject to statutory control. Even if ParkingEye had attempted to rely on PoFA (which they have not), they would be barred from doing so due to the nature of the land.
3. No Hirer Liability Applies
I note that ParkingEye have not alleged that I am the hirer of the vehicle, nor have they provided any documentation or evidence of a hire agreement. Even if they were to attempt this, PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 sets out strict requirements for holding a hirer liable—none of which have been fulfilled, and none of which apply if PoFA is not being used.
4. Conclusion
To reiterate:
* ParkingEye admit they are not using PoFA.
* The land in question is not “relevant land” under PoFA.
* The driver has not been identified.
* I am the registered keeper and cannot be held liable under these circumstances.
-
+1
However, it is interesting to see PE trying on the same excuse that MET use at Stansted and Gatwick airports. Just because the land is “private” does not mean it cannot be covered by byelaws.
However, the PoFA failure alone is sufficient to quash this.
-
Oh yes, I agree, I’d missed that because I was so hung up on the byelaw issue.
-
I'm not sure the OP needs to overcomplicate this with more references to the byelaws - ParkingEye essentially concede the entire appeal themselves:
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ParkingEye's response fails to rebut the points raised in my appeal. My grounds of appeal are that I am not liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle, as ParkingEye are unable to use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to recover the charge from me. Helpfully, ParkingEye confirm this in their response, stating "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012".
As ParkingEye accept that they are not using PoFA to recover this charge, only the driver may be liable. The driver has not been identified. I cannot be held liable as the registered keeper and accordingly my appeal must be upheld.
As an example, written quickly, so others may be able to improve.
-
You need to rebut everything Parking Eye says that you disagree with, including - but not limited to - sending the Milton Park Byelaws (Reply #31 above) if you are satisfied that they cover the area you parked and therefore it is not private land as claimed.
-
Hello, I have received an Action Required email from POPLA and have been asked to 'Please provide your comments on the operator evidence'. The main text is as follows;
Case History
11/04/2025 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
15/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
18/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
02/05/2025 Letter Issued - Driver Details Required non POFA with FAQs Non-POFA
05/05/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
05/05/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
15/05/2025 Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking Insufficient with FAQs Non-POFA
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed).
Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
To obtain a season permit, you must visit the site office with your full, correct vehicle registration & pay the
appropriate rate
Blue Badge holders – please display the clock portion of your Blue Badge in your vehicle and present the photo
portion to site office or scan one of the QR codes on display to register for a 24 hour parking permit.
Park within marked bays No parking on yellow lines/hatched areas
We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the
car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration
must be inputted when parking payments are made.
Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:
Payment Options: Payment Machine (Metric) and evology pay
Number of Payment Machines: 1
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority
to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be
enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods
which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace
Periods.
Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car
parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this
data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may
relate to the registration captured.
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the
backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating
to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document
included in this evidence pack.
There are 47 pages in total, the rest of the letter has copies of previous correspondence and photos of signage and parking machines.
Do I need to respond and if so what do I need to say? Again thank you for your help and assistance on this. Best regards.
-
Many thanks all. I have submitted my POPLA appeal. I will advise outcome.
Interestingly, there has been an article in the local newspaper regarding Milton Country Park parking;
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/visitors-popular-cambridgeshire-country-park-31648979
-
"Other"
The alternative option would be untrue, as you are the registered keeper.
-
Thank you so much for you help on this. Just a quick question, when submitting my appeal on the POPLA website am I selecting;
I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
Or
Other
Just want to select the correct option.
Best regards.
-
It shouldn't need more than that for POPLA to accept the appeal. However, if ParkingEye do not withdraw, then they will provide their evidence at a later date and you can then see what they have not rebutted in your appeal and counter that.
It is straightforward. The operator has not issued a PoFA complaint NtK, the location is not relevant land anyway. The driver has not been identified.
POPLA will first of all assess whether the Keeper can be liable. they can't. Then they will assess whether the driver has been identified. They haven't.
ParkingEye have nowhere to go with this and the assessor should find accordingly.
-
I must apologise, because, this doesn't really make sense to me? I think you have advised me to only add points 1&2 into my POPLA response. So my grounds of appeal are driver not identifed and Milton Country park by laws?
I have removed the other points. So my appeal is as below? I can also add the Milton Park Bylaws document. Do I also need to upload the PCN and a copy of my ticket? Sorry I'm not very good drafting letters on topics I have little knowledge on.
Thank you for your help and support.
POPLA Code: 6061355468
Parking Charge Notice: 288486/335086
Vehicle Registration: **** ***
Date of Issue: 11 April 2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable to Milton Country Park
2. Driver not identified – No presumption of driver liability
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4. The land is not “relevant land” as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and therefore, the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified.
ParkingEye are attempting to hold me liable as the registered keeper, despite this being a location where keeper liability cannot be established under PoFA.
Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to hold me liable as Hirer.
2. Driver not identified
At no stage have I identified the driver, nor is there any legal requirement to do so. ParkingEye have failed to demonstrate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
As keeper, I cannot be held liable for a charge incurred by an unknown third party at a location not covered by PoFA.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available online
Here's one I made earlier ;)
Milton Park Byelaws (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnlf6mUy37Sl5gDophgz7bN5ykRFLJ-w/view?usp=sharing)
Accompanying information from the FOI I made at the time:
I hope the following will answer your query:
1. As far as we are aware of, these bylaws are still in effect
2. N/A
3. A copy of the byelaws is attached.
4. We do not hold any information or plan regarding the land/boundaries for Milton Country Park and there was nothing with the byelaws.
Please note that the original lease for the Park comes from Cambridgeshire County Council and is now run by Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust.
-
It could do with fleshing out a bit and more references to the actual points you are making. For example, you could include a copy of the relevant byelaws rather that just saying that they exist.
While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available online, you can obtain a copy by contacting the following authorities:
• South Cambridgeshire District Council: As the local authority, they hold records of byelaws within their jurisdiction.
• Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust: This charity manages Milton Country Park and may provide information on park regulations.
This wording was used earlier, so include it again:
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4.
Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to hold me liable as Hirer.
Also, it's not worth trying to argue "Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss" (GPEOL) in 2025, unless you are dealing with very old signage or pre-2015 PCNs. These days, it is usually better using arguments such as:
• Lack of PoFA compliance;
• Land not being “relevant land”;
• Unclear, prohibitive, or misleading signage;
• No contract formed / no adequate notice of terms;
• Unlawful data use / KADOE breach;
• Disability discrimination (if applicable).
Only mention GPEOL if:
• The signage still refers to it;
• You are making a point about inconsistency or confusion in the charge wording;
• Or you want to undermine a charge that looks arbitrary and is grossly disproportionate.
-
Is something like this okay? Also, I just noticed your away, thank you for still responding, really appreciated.
POPLA Code: 6061355468
Parking Charge Notice: 288486/335086
Vehicle Registration: **** ***
Date of Issue: 11 April 2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable to Milton Country Park
2. Driver not identified – No presumption of driver liability
3. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. Failure to comply with BPA Code of Practice
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable
Milton Country Park is covered by statutory byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, and as such, is non-relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The land is not “relevant land” as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and therefore, the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified.
ParkingEye are attempting to hold me liable as the registered keeper, despite this being a location where keeper liability cannot be established under PoFA.
If the assessor cannot identify the driver and PoFA is not applicable, this appeal must be upheld.
2. Driver not identified
At no stage have I identified the driver, nor is there any legal requirement to do so. ParkingEye have failed to demonstrate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
As keeper, I cannot be held liable for a charge incurred by an unknown third party at a location not covered by PoFA.
3. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £100 (or £60 discounted) is arbitrary and clearly punitive. It does not reflect any genuine pre-estimate of loss by the landowner or ParkingEye.
Since this is not a contractual fee for parking, but rather a penalty, it is unenforceable.
4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice
ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate compliance with the BPA Code of Practice in several ways, including:
Poor signage visibility
No grace period consideration
Attempting to rely on PoFA in a non-relevant land situation
These breaches further invalidate the legitimacy of the charge.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
I just put "POPLA appeal" in the search box and it came up with over 650 posts you can look at.
-
b789, thank you again for your help on this matter. You have been fantastic.
I have looked through other posts and tried searching for 'POPLA appeal'. However I'm not really sure what I am looking for? I can't find any POPLA letters to use as templates. Sorry I have never done this before.
Regards
-
So, you have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit your POPLA appeal. Have a search of other POPLA appeals on here and see what you can come up with, based on the information you have been told about in this and the other thread. Don't send anything before you post it here so that we can advise on anything you should add or remove or edit.
Remember, the first thing the assessor will want to determine is whether you, the Keeper can be liable as the drivers identity has not been provided. As this location is covered by byelaws, PoFA does not apply.
If the POPLA assessor cannot determine the drivers identity and PoFA does not apply to land that is covered by statutory byelaws, that should end the matter as far as POPLA is concerned. However, you can throw in the kitchen sink is as a backup, just in case the assessor on the day is one of those doltish types we often see.
-
Hello, I have just had the following from Parking Eye too;
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 288486/335086
POPLA Ref: 6061355468
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 11 April 2025 at
13:34, at Milton Country Park, Milton car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal and can see that a payment to park
was made on the date of the event. Unfortunately, the tariff purchased was insufficient
and did not cover the entire duration of the stay. The terms and conditions and tariffs are
outlined on the signage which are on display throughout the car park.
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 goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from
the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you will not be able to pay the
discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge
will be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you will no
longer be able to pay the discounted amount and the full value of the charge will 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 allow 24 hours for our
systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated
payment line or website.
Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team
Could you please advise how to respond? Many thanks.
-
Hello,
I have just received a response from Privacy@parkingeye.co.uk
Dear Mr *****,
Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge. We have been passed this as we note you have raised a data query.
Please note, it is Parkingeye’s position that this charge was issued following a contractual breach of the terms and conditions in operation onsite, and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA. Please note that our lawful bases for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. Parkingeye do not rely on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges. We are registered with the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.
We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request that we remove data from our system and cease processing in this instance at this stage, and can confirm that your appeal has now been passed back to our dedicated Appeals Team for further consideration.
Please note you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO in respect of this response, should you wish to do so. You may also seek a judicial remedy.
For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/
Yours sincerely,
Parkingeye Privacy Team
Do I need to do anything? Many thanks in advance.
-
Many thanks, I have added the missing details and sent my response.
Once Parking Eye reply, I'll let you know.
Best Regards
-
ParkingEye's response is a standard template designed to pressure the Keeper into naming the driver. However:
• There is no legal obligation for a Keeper to identify the driver;
• The PCN was issued on land not classified as “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA);
• Since they have not relied on PoFA and cannot lawfully do so, no Hirer liability can arise, and their request for the driver's identity is irrelevant to the validity of your appeal.
You should now send this follow-up:
Dear ParkingEye,
Re: Parking Charge Notice 288486/335086
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Date of Event: 11 April 2025
Hirer: [Your Full Name]
I write in response to your correspondence addressed to me as the Hirer of the vehicle.
Your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), nor does it include any of the documents required under Paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 4 to establish liability on the part of a Hirer.
Without explicitly relying PoFA or providing the required documentation, you have no lawful basis to pursue me for the charge as Hirer.
Moreover, the location in question — Milton Country Park — is subject to statutory byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State. Land governed by statutory control is excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA, making the Act entirely inapplicable in any event.
Accordingly, your continued pursuit of this charge in my name after I have declined to provide the drivers identity, amounts to unlawful processing of personal data, contrary to your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018, UK GDPR, and the terms of your KADOE contract with the DVLA. You are using my data without a lawful basis.
I therefore require:
• Immediate cancellation of the PCN; and
• Confirmation that my data has been erased from your systems.
Should you refuse to cancel the charge, I require a POPLA code so that I may escalate the matter. I reserve the right to report this misuse of my data to the DVLA, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the BPA.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Hirer of the vehicle
-
Hello, I have just received a response from Parking Eye. It reads as follows.. I have also attached a copy of the pdf.
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 288486/335086
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 11 April
2025 at 13:34, at Milton Country Park, Milton 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 well
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 faithfully,
Parkingeye Team
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you, I will do that when I receive the PCN.
-
If they only appealed a few days ago they are unlikely to have heard back yet.
If you want advice on your own case, please start your own thread in line with the forum's House Rules (https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/house-rules/)
-
Hello
Sorry to piggyback on this thread but we are in exact same position as OP: £100 PCN at Milton for 30 min overstay (impossible to pay for overstay on exit). Lease car so not registered keeper - just heard from lease company, not had PCN ourselves yet (tho I can view it on the parking eye system).
May I ask if the OP has had any news from them yet? And if the advice for a response would likely be the same in our case?
Many thanks in advance.
-
As I have appealed, is my 14 day period discount on hold?
The back of the notice you have received answers that question.
Although the discount is irrelevant if you don't owe them anything...
-
Hello, I am still waiting a response from Parking Eye, they have confirmed receipt on Friday. As I have appealed, is my 14 day period discount on hold? I have also found the parking ticket from the day. Thank you.
-
Thanks b789, I amended my appeal as you suggested. I will advise the response. Parking Eye have confirmed receipt.
-
There is already a case at the same location but with a Keeper rather than a Hirer:
ParkingEye PCN - Overstay within grace period - Milton Country Park, Cambridge (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parkingeye-pcn-overstay-within-grace-period-milton-country-park-cambridge/)
-
Well-spotted @b789.
OP, if you've already submitted based on my template, don't fret. If ParkingEye don't just cancel, we can add in the relevant land argument at POPLA.
-
Milton Country Park is land under statutory control, specifically regulated by byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968. These byelaws were:
• Made by South Cambridgeshire District Council;
• Confirmed by the Secretary of State on 5 April 1994;
• Came into operation on 2 May 1994.
Key Implications:
•The byelaws prohibit or regulate the use of vehicles within the park, subject to exceptions such as spaces set aside by the Council (see section 6).
• Any parking enforcement regime operated within Milton Country Park must be consistent with these statutory byelaws.
•As a result, Milton Country Park is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning:
• The Keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for any parking charge under PoFA.
• Only the driver at the time of the alleged incident could potentially be pursued, subject to other defences.
Besides the fact that ParkingEye failed to include the copies of the required documents, the above is the reason they have not issued an NtH that invokes PoFA. If a private parking company attempts to invoke PoFA to pursue the Keeper/Hirer, or fails to account for the statutory control status of the land, such enforcement would be legally defective.
So, I would adapt that appeal slightly as follows:
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act").
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so.
For the avoidance of doubt, even if you had attempted to rely on Schedule 4 of the Act, you would have failed to establish liability, as the location in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control by byelaws. As such, the land is not “relevant land” within the meaning of the Act, and the provisions of Schedule 4 do not apply.
I am therefore unable to assist you further with this matter, and I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
-
Of course.
-
I have selected other and submitted my appeal. Once I get a response is it okay, to seek further instructions?
Many thanks in advance.
-
If there's an option for 'Other', I generally suggest choosing that, but otherwise the option you have suggested would seem OK in the circumstances.
-
Thank you for you quick response.
The PCN was the only document I received.
Just filling out the appeal with Parkingeye , do I select the 'Reason for appeal:
I was not the driver of the vehicle'
Thanks for your help on this matter, really do appreciate it.
-
I assume ParkingEye did not enclose any other documents alongside their PCN, such as a copy of your lease agreement?
So, you are the hirer and not the registered keeper. This means you have no liability, as they are not seeking to hold you liable as the hirer.
Appeal online as the hirer only with the below:
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the hirer of the vehicle, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act").
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue 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.
-
Here is the back of the PCN. The Parking Eye letter is addressed to me. The vehicles V5C document is addressed to the lease company.[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes. We also need to see the back of that notice, and need confirmation of the questions asked in my previous post.
We also need to know if the ParkingEye notice you have shown us is addressed to you or the lease company.
-
Please can you confirm you can see my uploads, apologies, not used this system before. Many thanks B
-
[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am the registered keeper
If this is a leased vehicle, and said lease company have charged you an admin fee, this is very unlikely. Do you have the vehicle's V5C document with your name and address on it? If so, the PCN would have come straight to you with absolutely no involvement from your lease company.
Please show us the notice you have received (and any other related correspondence) - there is a guide to doing so here (please use Imgur as advised, don't upload directly to here): READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
-
Morning,
Received a PCN letter from Parkingeye on the 24th April (letter dated 18th April). I am the registered keeper, driver was not me.
ANPR shows 2hours 32 minutes between entrance (11:02:17) and exit (13:34:28).
Driver (not me) paid for 2 hours parking @ £3.75. Upon leaving she said there was no option to pay the extra 30mins so left.
We have now received a Parking Charge of £100 (or £60 early payment), plus a £10 charge from our car lease company.
I want to appeal as this doesn't seem fair, can I appeal? I have checked the Tripadvisor for Milton Country Park and the last eight reviews are people complaining about the Parking Company.
Thanks
Best regards,
B