Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND APPEAL – Parking Charge [PCN number]
To: Complaints Department, ParkingEye Ltd
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a formal complaint about the above Parking Charge Notice, issued to me as the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM].
Under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), any complaint that could also be considered an appeal must be treated as both a complaint and an appeal. If it is treated as an appeal, it must be handled in accordance with the timescales set out in Clause 8.4.
If Clause 8.4 applies, you are also required to issue a POPLA verification code should you reject the appeal, and you are on notice that I will require that code without delay or obstruction.
1. Failure to Serve the Original Notice to Keeper – PoFA Schedule 4 Breach
I did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). The only correspondence received was a “Reminder” dated 25 June.
Under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(5), you must serve a compliant NtK within 14 days of the alleged contravention if you wish to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. You are put to strict proof that the NtK was:
• Generated in compliance with PoFA; and
• Actually posted within the statutory timeframe.
The presumption of service under the Interpretation Act 1978 applies only where the sender can prove actual posting. It is a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic shield against challenge.
For clarity:
• Proof of posting is not the same as producing a copy of the NtK from your system.
• Acceptable evidence includes a Royal Mail certificate of posting, a franked mail manifest, or equivalent independent evidence showing the date the item entered the postal system.
• Without such evidence, the presumption of delivery is rebutted and the court must accept that the NtK was not served.
• Any attempt to rely on the tired line “we are not responsible for the postal service” will be rejected outright.
Responsibility for evidencing service lies entirely with you, as the party asserting that service occurred.
2. Disability Discrimination and Breach of PPSCoP Sections 4.1 & 4.2
The driver of the vehicle is a disabled person. You have statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, and you also have binding obligations under PPSCoP sections 4.1 and 4.2 to:
• Ensure at least one sign containing the full parking terms can be viewed without the driver leaving the vehicle.
• Ensure obligations for disabled motorists are prominent, low-placed, and readily visible from disabled bays, with clear guidance on any steps they must take to benefit from additional time or concessions.
From the driver’s account, no terms signage or payment machines were visible or accessible in the vicinity of the bay used. This placed the disabled motorist at a clear disadvantage, constituting both a breach of the Code and unlawful indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
You are now required to produce strict proof of compliance, including:
• A dated, scaled site plan showing all signage and payment machines in relation to the disabled bay used.
• Dated photographs showing exactly what is visible from that bay and on the approach to it.
• Specific evidence of reasonable adjustments in place to ensure disabled motorists are not disadvantaged in accessing or understanding the terms.
3. Vague, Incoherent and Unenforceable Allegation – “0 hours 0 minutes”
Your reminder states that a Parking Charge is payable if the vehicle “remains within the car park for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time”.
This is patently absurd. A term stating that the maximum permitted stay is zero minutes is meaningless in contract law and in plain English. It is incapable of acceptance by any reasonable motorist and fails to convey any intelligible contractual obligation.
Further, your own notice lists three entirely different and mutually exclusive possible reasons for issuing the charge:
• No valid pay and display ticket purchased;
• Remaining at the car park for longer than permitted;
• Not entering the vehicle registration into a terminal in reception.
You have failed to identify which of these you allege applies in this case, let alone point to the specific contractual term said to have been breached. Such ambiguity is fatal to any claim, as a motorist cannot be expected to guess which obligation is alleged to have been breached.
If the signage genuinely states “0 hours 0 minutes” as the maximum stay, then it is void for uncertainty. If it does not, then your Notice misrepresents the terms and is misleading. In either case, the allegation is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sections 62 and 68) due to lack of transparency and failure to bring a key term to the attention of the motorist in a clear and intelligible way.
4. Misuse of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
Your reliance on Beavis is wholly misplaced and misleading. The Beavis judgment concerned a retail car park offering a clearly advertised free period, with prominent signage at the entrance and throughout, where the motorist had knowingly overstayed that free period.
This case does not involve a clearly advertised free parking period, and your own paperwork suggests that no such free period exists. The facts are therefore materially different. To cite Beavis as if it applies wholesale here is at best sloppy, and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient into believing the charge has been judicially approved in circumstances where it plainly has not. Any repetition of that position in litigation will be challenged in open court.
5. Litigation Warning
For the avoidance of doubt, I am fully aware of my rights and the relevant legal framework. If ParkingEye is under the illusion that I can be influenced by veiled threats of possible future litigation, you are mistaken.
If you choose to escalate this matter beyond the appeals process, I am already prepared and committed to defending any claim robustly. In that event, I will:
• Rely on your breaches of the Equality Act 2010, PPSCoP, Consumer Rights Act 2015, and PoFA 2012.
• Place before the court any failure to address this complaint/appeal properly and any refusal to provide the evidence requested.
• Seek appropriate sanctions and costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
• Escalate complaints to the DVLA, BPA, and Information Commissioner’s Office for misuse of my personal data and failure to comply with statutory and Code obligations.
If you reject this appeal and are so sure of your position, you are obliged under the BPA’s AOS membership rules to issue a valid POPLA code to allow escalation. I will expect that code to be supplied without delay or obstruction. While I hold POPLA in little regard due to its clear lack of true independence — given its financial reliance on the very industry it is meant to assess — you remain contractually bound to provide that route of escalation.
Any attempt to issue a claim without first addressing the substantive issues and evidence requests set out in this complaint will be treated as unreasonable behaviour and will be brought to the court’s attention in full.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of Registered Keeper]
[Address]
[Email]