The points are entirely valid, but with an identified driver, not necessarily a silver bullet. Making a big noise with PALS is very much worthwhile, and likewise ParkingEye as advised. They may not wish for any poor practice to come under too much scrutiny, so making a fuss may get you put in the "too much hassle" pile by ParkingEye and make them give up. Certainly worth a go.
Re. the point around KADOE data not being issued the same day, this is usually confirmed by DVLA themselves in responses to Subject Access Requests. A recent one I submitted contained the following about releases:
"As these requests were made electronically they would have generated automatic responses, which would have been sent to the company the following working day."
You may wish to send a Subject Access Request to DVLA yourself, so that you have a copy of when ParkingEye requested your details, and similar confirmation that the data would have reached ParkingEye the following working day. You can do so here: Make a subject access request to DVLA (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/make-a-subject-access-request-to-dvla)
1. PoFA Technical Breach – Relevant Period Starts the Day After the Contravention
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) defines the “relevant period” for delivering a Notice to Keeper as (my emphasis):
"the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."
This is not optional or ambiguous — the Act says the 14-day countdown starts the day after the contravention date, not on it.
Therefore, if an NtK is issued on the same date as the alleged contravention, then by definition:
• The operator has commenced the relevant period prematurely, in breach of the timing requirements under PoFA.
Even though the NtK was eventually delivered within 14 days, the issue date being within the contravention date is legally incorrect, and it demonstrates non-compliance with the statutory framework the operator claims to follow.
2. Procedural Impossibility – DVLA Data Cannot Be Received the Same Day
Regardless of PoFA, it's a fact that:
• DVLA KADOE data requests cannot return keeper information in real-time,
• Parking operators are only permitted to request keeper data after the contravention has occurred,
• Data requests are processed in overnight or scheduled batches, and responses are not immediate.
Therefore, if the NtK was dated and issued on 28/03/2025, the same date as the alleged breach:
• ParkingEye could not lawfully have obtained the DVLA data on that date,
• Which makes it impossible for them to have prepared and issued a compliant NtK that same day.
So, this isn't about whether the NtK was delivered within 14 days — it was.
It's about the fact that:
• PoFA requires the notice to be issued no earlier than the day after the contravention date.
• ParkingEye could not lawfully or practically issue a same-day NtK due to DVLA access restrictions.
This is both a technical breach of statute and a likely breach of DVLA contractual and data protection rules.
What is the date of the ParkingEye appeal rejection? That letter has a POPLA code which is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection.
Go back and tell PALS that they are morons by suggesting that you should appeal to POPLA with mitigating circumstances as this just highlights their utter incompetence because POPLA does not and cannot take mitigation into account, only breaches of the law or the PPSCoP to cancel a PCN.
As you have confirmed that the PCN was only issued as a Notice to Keeper (NtK), there is a serious issue with the fact that the date of the alleged contravention and the issue date of the NtK are the same.
In the meantime, I suggest you send the following to ParkingEye and CC in PALS@ulh.nhs.uk and yourself:
Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Explanation – NtK Issue Date Same as Contravention Date (28/03/2025)
Dear ParkingEye,
I write in relation to the Parking Charge Notice issued against my vehicle in connection with an alleged contravention at Lincoln County Hospital on 28/03/2025. The Notice to Keeper I received is dated the same day: 28/03/2025.
I am requesting a formal explanation for how your company was able to issue and post a Notice to Keeper on the same date as the alleged event, given that:
• The contravention occurred on 28/03/2025;
• There was no Notice to Driver issued on the vehicle;
• Therefore, a DVLA keeper request was necessary;
Yet DVLA KADOE responses are not returned instantly and cannot lawfully be requested or used before the date of the alleged event has even concluded.
Please confirm:
• The exact date and time that ParkingEye submitted the keeper request to the DVLA;
• The exact date and time that ParkingEye received the keeper details;
• The method, date and proof of posting of the NtK;
• Whether the issue date of 28/03/2025 printed on the NtK is in fact accurate;
• If not, why a false date was printed.
Given that DVLA’s KADOE system does not provide data in real time, it appears ParkingEye may have either:
• Falsified the issue date; or
• Accessed personal data before the date the alleged event had concluded, which would lack a lawful basis and contravene both your KADOE contract and UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a).
This matter is being considered for escalation to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) depending on your response. Please reply within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number]