Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: 911bill on November 10, 2025, 12:03:59 pm
-
are they likely to end this?
Based on the defence that the PCN is not allegedly not fully compliant with all the requirements of POFA which seems to be the basis of the defence, no I would say POPLA will likely conclude the PCN was correctly issued and your appeal has no merit. As b789 loves to point out POPLA assessors are not trained legal experts and are looking to make a decision on the substantive elements of the appeal such as the NTK not being delivered in time, failing to adhere to the joint code of practice, clearly demonstrable signage issues etc. In your case on the surface there was a clear breach of the Ts & Cs of the parking contract and no obvious mitigation for that. You're relying on possible technicalities. the advice on here in most cases is not about a winning argument, it's about doing enough to run the clock down and hope they don't actually proceed to court. It usually works, not because it has merit but because the PPCs can't afford to take everyone to court so give up.
If you lose at POPLA it's not binding on you, you still don't have to pay but debt collectors letters followed by a letter of claim. The LoC you will have to engage with. It's likely it will eventually be dropped before the court hearing, but only if you put the effort in to navigate the court process and enter a defence.
-
Hello!
Thanks for the above, with that being sent, I finally had a reply via email. It contains their rejection and lovely offer of an extended discount period and below that, is a POPLA letter with information on how to appeal via them and reasons for appeal which I'm sure you are familiar with seeing.
So it is POPLA time, a first for me. I can do so online, are they likely to end this?
Many thanks
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - ABC1231
POPLA Ref: ABC123
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 03 November
2025 at x, at Asda Sutton car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. The
signage displayed on site confirms that there is a maximum stay time in operation. Our
records confirm that on the date of the event, the maximum stay time allowed was
exceeded.
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.
-
That email is a standard “name the driver or we’ll pursue the keeper” pressure letter. You do not have any legal obligation to identify the driver.
If you do not name the driver, ParkingEye can only hold the keeper liable if they have fully complied with every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As their NtK is not fully compliant with every element of PoFA, they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, regardless of what that email says.
Respond with the following:
Dear ParkingEye,
I am the registered keeper. I will not be naming the driver.
There is no legal obligation for a keeper to identify the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
In any event, you cannot transfer liability to the keeper because your Notice to Keeper does not comply with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, there is no keeper liability.
Please either confirm cancellation or issue a POPLA code.
Yours faithfully,
(keeper name)
-
Update:
Reply from PE, sent via E-mail. Surprised my spam filter let it through.
If you don't tell us who was driving, we'll come for you..
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54979651199_ed8c3caa03_z.jpg)
Can I appeal again with the same reply and keep this looping? :)
-
HAHA I love the reply! That's more like it.
Thank you, this is very useful information, thanks for the education here and advice.
-
No, don't use that. Their Notice to Keeper is not PoFA complaint. Any initial appeal will be rejected anyway. Follow this advice:
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:
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.
-
Thank you for that, I'll admit being gullible, it's a shame that people just go and pay. Every parking firm seems to have different methods of appeal so had to come here to ask. I do not want to pay them, that's for sure.
So I guess I have to engage, rather than just ignore. So I am planning to submit the below through their appeal platform to get the ball rolling
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I dispute this charge for the following reasons:
• ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate that the signage at Asda Sutton at the time was clear, prominent and fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
• No evidence has been provided that the ANPR system is synchronised, accurate, or compliant with BPA requirements.
• As the keeper, I cannot be held liable because ParkingEye has not demonstrated full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• If you refuse this appeal, please supply a POPLA code.
Please treat this as a request for cancellation or escalation to POPLA.
Yours,
-
You are showing your gullibility as soon as you mention your worry about "court and bailiffs". this is exactly what these firms prey on.
These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery” letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they make a very good living shaking it.
Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life lesson” from...
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine. It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your credit file.
If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do, however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of imaginary consequences.
If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear. Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your credit rating would be unchanged.
As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default. Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders are concerned.
A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents) only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been paid.
For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful bailiff.
So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days, your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private parking charge.
These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
-
Amazing, thank you.
I have been supplied a receipt with 12:25 as payment time.
It has been 14 days from issue date, appeal deadline is 28 from delivery of ntk.
-
• The mandatory grace periods (arrival and departure) have not been applied.
The minimum grace period is 10 minutes, they are alleging an overstay of 1 hour 13 minutes, so I'd leave this one out.
Any initial appeal will be rejected. If you're still working on escalation with Asda themselves, don't miss the deadline to appeal, but don't appeal any sooner than you need to.
-
A fairly generic appeal from pieces I've gathered through searching. I hope this is sufficient, any advice appreciated.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I dispute this charge for the following reasons:
• ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate that the signage at Asda Sutton at the time was clear, prominent and fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
• No evidence has been provided that the ANPR system is synchronised, accurate, or compliant with BPA requirements.
• The mandatory grace periods (arrival and departure) have not been applied.
• As the keeper, I cannot be held liable because ParkingEye has not demonstrated full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• If you refuse this appeal, please supply a POPLA code.
Please treat this as a request for cancellation or escalation to POPLA.
Yours,
-
You are correct but it's hard to navigate handling this without the hassle and threats of court, baliffs etc.
We have a receipt for shopping in Asda, the customer service said they don't cancel tickets as they can't.. No reply from CEO email and linked in.
So I must appeal online it seems and let them know Asda was used, along with a lunch and coffee with kids, hence the time spent.
-
"Higher fee"? You mean you are considering paying it at the 'mugs discount' rate? Why would you want to pay a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking firm for an alleged breach of contract by the driver, just because they are offering you a 40% discount?
This is exactly how these firms persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to part with their money. Perhaps I knew your address and sent you a speculative invoice for £100 but if you pay me within 14 days, I will only charge you £60. Bargain?
-
I found an address which is apparently the CEO's email, I feel like I will be surprised if I get a reply.
Should I appeal the ticket as a matter of avoiding being liable for a higher fee?
Many thanks
-
Will do, thank you!
-
CEO@asda.com should be your first port of call. Search the forum also.
-
Hi All,
Hope you are well.
Fresh through the letterbox, a PCN from parking eye for a car registered in my name. I wasn't driving...
It shows that the car stayed in a parking area monitored by Parking Eye for 3 hours 13 minutes but signage apparently says that the maximum time to stay is 2 hours.
The times shows in the CCTV image match times stated, registration is correct.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54914030641_68db252ff9_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54914030651_608fbd6e24_z.jpg)
I do not have pictures of the signage but I know that it does give a 2 hour period so I cannot dispute that. It's well known, even by the driver at the time but kids, lunch over clouded the mind apparently..
Do I pay up or do I appeal?
I hope this meets the rules and requirements here.
Many thanks for any input.