Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: fritz-zx6 on October 07, 2025, 10:01:24 am

Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: b789 on December 01, 2025, 05:34:42 pm
Appeal to POPLA with the following:

Quote
POPLA Verification Code: [enter]
Operator: ParkingEye
PCN: [enter]
Vehicle Reg: [enter]
Appellant: Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I will not be doing so. No inference can be drawn.

Ground 1 – PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a): the Notice to Keeper fails to identify the relevant land

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) states only “St Michaels Court” with no town, street or postcode. “St Michaels Court” is not uniquely identifiable and could refer to multiple distinct sites nationwide. By way of illustration, here are thirty different “St Michaels Court” locations:

1. Worcester, WR1 2AR – Mixed use building
2. Leeds, LS10 1DG – Court off Dock Street
3. Cheltenham – YMCA supported housing
4. Penzance, TR18 4AF – Chapel Street business address
5. Nottingham, NG1 6EA – Student apartments near Maid Marian Way
6. Lichfield, WS13 6EF – Former hospital site on Trent Valley Road
7. Cambridge, CB2 3NJ – Gonville & Caius College accommodation
8. Cosham (Portsmouth), PO6 4AR – Paulsgrove residential block
9. Gloucester, GL1 1JB – Mixed commercial buildings near Brunswick Road
10. Durham, DH1 3RJ – Residential development
11. Weybridge, KT13 9BP – Princes Road residential development
12. Leicester, LE1 5XZ – Residential block near New Walk
13. Truro, TR1 2SL – Court off Kenwyn Street
14. Reading, RG1 7ER – Office court
15. York, YO1 7LH – Flats off Micklegate
16. Liverpool, L1 6DE – St Michael’s Court off Dale Street
17. Amersham, HP6 6AA – Retail court car park off Sycamore Road
18. Bournemouth, BH2 5DX – Residential block near West Hill
19. Northampton, NN1 3DW – Residential complex off Wellingborough Road
20. South Shields, NE33 3AL – Housing estate near Laygate
21. Exeter, EX4 3AF – Residential flats near High Street
22. Bath, BA1 1QF – St Michael’s Court off Walcot Street
23. London (Poplar), E14 6PS – Residential complex on St Leonards Road
24. Hereford, HR1 2HX – Flats near Commercial Street
25. Sunderland, SR2 8JU – Gray Road residential flats
26. Newport (South Wales), NP20 2BY – Church Street residential block
27. Manchester, M4 5EG – Residential block near Ancoats
28. Aylsham (Norfolk), NR11 6YA – St Michaels Avenue residential area
29. Birmingham, B3 1UF – Office development near Colmore Row
30. Carlisle, CA1 2QN – Flats off London Road

There are more but I think that the POPLA assessor gets the drift. In the absence of a unique identifier such as a town, street and/or postcode, the NtK does not “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.

Ground 2 – PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): no invitation to the keeper to pay

The NtK does not contain the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge. Partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient; the statutory wording is prescriptive. Absent full compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), keeper liability cannot arise.

Ground 3 – No keeper liability; no obligation to name the driver

ParkingEye has chosen to pursue an alleged contractual breach by the driver. There is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver and no inference can be drawn from the keeper’s silence. Given the failures under paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i), the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper in any event.

Ground 4 – ParkingEye is put to strict proof of standing at whatever location they are actually referring to

Even if POPLA were to disregard the PoFA defects (which it should not), ParkingEye must still demonstrate that it has the necessary legal standing to operate and issue PCNs in its own name at the actual site in question.

At present, the operator has not properly identified the land, merely referring to “St Michaels Court” which, as shown above, is hopelessly generic. It follows that:

1. ParkingEye is put to strict proof that a binding, contemporaneous, unredacted contract exists between the landowner of the specific site actually concerned and ParkingEye.
2. That contract must:
   (a) Clearly identify the exact land to which it applies (including the correct full site name and address);
   (b) Grant ParkingEye authority to operate, erect signage, issue parking charges, and crucially, to pursue those charges and legal action in its own name rather than as agent; and
   (c) Be in force for the material period.
3. A generic “witness statement” or self-serving letter is not sufficient. Only a full, signed, unredacted copy of the landowner agreement, showing the defined site and the scope of ParkingEye’s authority, will suffice.

Given that “St Michaels Court” is not uniquely specified in the NtK, any contract now produced must match the actual physical location of the alleged contravention. If ParkingEye cannot show a contract tied to a clearly identified piece of land that corresponds with this PCN, they have no standing and no cause of action, even against a driver, let alone a keeper.

Conclusion

Because the NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable. In addition, ParkingEye has not proved its standing to operate or issue PCNs in its own name at whatever unidentified location “St Michaels Court” is supposed to be. I require POPLA to allow this appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: fritz-zx6 on December 01, 2025, 04:00:47 pm
Thank you all for your wonderful help so far.  I have now had ParkingEye's response that that my appeal to them has been unsuccessful as we were expecting, of course.

Here is their response:

Dear Sir / Madam,
We are writing in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on xxxxxx,
at St Michaels Court car park.
Parkingeye have previously requested further evidence in response to the appeal that
was submitted and provided 28 days for this to be sent to us. The 28-day period has now
passed, and we are not in receipt of any further correspondence or evidence to confirm
that the terms were not breached.
Parkingeye are a member of the British Parking Association and can confirm that there is
adequate signage outlining the terms and conditions at this site.
We are writing to advise you that your 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.
Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454
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.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team

Can you please help me write a letter to POPLA?

Thank you!

Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: fritz-zx6 on October 13, 2025, 11:39:43 am
Many thanks for your helpful response.  I have appealed to Parking Eye today.

I will keep you all informed.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: DWMB2 on October 13, 2025, 10:13:50 am
We had a previous case at St Michael's Court, from memory (I think the same one) - where POPLA) found against the appellant, ridiculously. In this case that comically long list of St Michael's Courts will be useful to hopefully very much hammer home the point!
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: b789 on October 12, 2025, 04:27:11 pm
Interesting... would that be St Michaels Court:

1. Worcester, WR1 2AR – Mixed use building
2. Leeds, LS10 1DG – Court off Dock Street
3. Cheltenham – YMCA supported housing
4. Penzance, TR18 4AF – Chapel Street business address
5. Nottingham, NG1 6EA – Student apartments near Maid Marian Way
6. Lichfield, WS13 6EF – Former hospital site on Trent Valley Road
7. Cambridge, CB2 3NJ – Gonville & Caius College accommodation
8. Cosham (Portsmouth), PO6 4AR – Paulsgrove residential block
9. Gloucester, GL1 1JB – Mixed commercial buildings near Brunswick Road
10. Durham, DH1 3RJ – Residential development
11. Weybridge, KT13 9BP – Princes Road residential development
12. Leicester, LE1 5XZ – Residential block near New Walk
13. Truro, TR1 2SL – Court off Kenwyn Street
14. Reading, RG1 7ER – Office court
15. York, YO1 7LH – Flats off Micklegate
16. Liverpool, L1 6DE – St Michael’s Court off Dale Street
17. Amersham, HP6 6AA – Retail court car park off Sycamore Road
18. Bournemouth, BH2 5DX – Residential block near West Hill
19. Northampton, NN1 3DW – Residential complex off Wellingborough Road
20. South Shields, NE33 3AL – Housing estate near Laygate
21. Exeter, EX4 3AF – Residential flats near High Street
22. Bath, BA1 1QF – St Michael’s Court off Walcot Street
23. London (Poplar), E14 6PS – Residential complex on St Leonards Road
24. Hereford, HR1 2HX – Flats near Commercial Street
25. Sunderland, SR2 8JU – Gray Road residential flats
26. Newport (South Wales), NP20 2BY – Church Street residential block
27. Manchester, M4 5EG – Residential block near Ancoats
28. Aylsham (Norfolk), NR11 6YA – St Michaels Avenue residential area
29. Birmingham, B3 1UF – Office development near Colmore Row
30. Carlisle, CA1 2QN – Flats off London Road

There are more but I ran out of patience.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA para 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i). It does not identify the relevant land and does not contain an invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

If they respond with their usual request for the drivers details, you can respond to that with:

Quote
Dear ParkingEye,

Thank you for your latest template request for the driver’s details. You appear to be under the impression that I am obliged to act as your unpaid investigator. I am not.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives you a statutory route to pursue the registered keeper only if you have complied with every requirement of Schedule 4. It does not entitle you to demand private information to remedy your own procedural or evidential deficiencies.
Since your Notice to Keeper fails on more than one PoFA point. no liability of any kind can be transferred to the keeper. Your PCN is therefore defective, and this charge is denied in full.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be naming the driver. You have all the information you are entitled to under statute. Should you wish to continue wasting time and resources pursuing an unidentifiable site and an unproven debt, that is a matter for your internal compliance department to explain to POPLA and any court that later questions your competence.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: fritz-zx6 on October 12, 2025, 02:13:27 pm
Sorry this has taken a while to master.  Here are the two links everyone needs. Apologies again for the delay:

https://ibb.co/xSBz43mL
https://ibb.co/Wd1FSq1
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: fritz-zx6 on October 08, 2025, 08:53:09 am
Yes, sorry, the driver parked anyway and did not pay through the app. 
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: b789 on October 07, 2025, 12:51:36 pm
Impossible to read. However, you state: "The driver attempted to pay for parking using the ParkingEye app, but the app would not load or process the payment despite several attempts. The driver then left after completing their visit."

Do you mean the driver decided that because they couldn't pay, for whatever reason, they parked anyway, or did the driver decide that because they couldn't pay to leave and find elswhere to park?
Title: Re: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: jfollows on October 07, 2025, 10:04:04 am
The image is only of the front, but more importantly is too low quality for me to be able to read it, this may of course be my fault, but please verify.
Title: ParkingEye PCN St Michaels Court, Amersham
Post by: fritz-zx6 on October 07, 2025, 10:01:24 am
ParkingEye PCN – St Michaels Court – Amersham

On 27 September 2025, the driver parked at St Michaels Court car park. The driver attempted to pay for parking using the ParkingEye app, but the app would not load or process the payment despite several attempts. The driver then left after completing their visit.

On 30 September 2025, the registered keeper, received a Parking Charge Notice through the post. Copies of both sides of the notice are attached, with personal information (name, address, VRM, reference number, and barcodes) redacted as advised.

I would be grateful for advice on how to proceed.

https://postimg.cc/hQsLFWGj