Please stop "quoting" whole chunks of previous replies. They just make reading this very tedious.Absolutely.
Subject: Your “traffic violation/ fine/issuing authority” email re ParkingEye – incorrect, misleading, and not accepted
Dear Enterprise Traffic Violations Team,
I write as the Hirer in respect of your attachment dated 24 November 2025 (reference: [ENTERPRISE REF]) concerning an allegation by ParkingEye at Holy Family Church, Sale.
Your correspondence is riddled with inaccurate terminology and misleading statements. ParkingEye is not an “issuing authority”. This is not a “traffic violation”, “citation”, or “fine”. There is no “offence”. There is no police process. ParkingEye is an unregulated private parking firm issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which is, in plain English, a speculative invoice alleging a breach of civil contract terms on private land.
Accordingly:1. Do not misstate liability.
Your email asserts “we are notifying you of your liability.” That is not your determination to make, and it is plainly wrong in the context of a private parking invoice. Liability (if any) is disputed and depends on contract, signage, and evidence.
2. Stop referring to “re-issuing a fine” and “reduced amounts”.
ParkingEye cannot “re-issue a fine”. If anything is sent to me, it would be a Notice to Hirer/PCN as part of a civil claim process, not a statutory enforcement process.
3. You have no basis to mention the Police.
Your paragraph about “speeding offences” and responding to Police is irrelevant, inappropriate, and suggests your process is a copy-and-paste template applied without care. This matter is labelled “PARKING” and relates to ParkingEye.
4. Do not pay ParkingEye.
To be clear: you are not authorised to make any payment to ParkingEye in my name. You must not treat a private parking invoice as if it were a penalty or fine.
5. Administration fee disputed.
You state you “will attempt to charge the card” an administration fee of £35. I dispute that any fee is due in circumstances where you have demonstrated fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the allegation and have provided no proper documentation.
If you take any payment, I require (as a minimum) a full itemised justification and the precise contractual clause you rely upon, together with evidence that the clause is fair and applicable to a private parking invoice.
6. Provide documents and confirm what you have done.
Please provide by return:a. A copy of the actual ParkingEye notice you received (all pages).
b. Confirmation of the date you received it.
c. Confirmation of exactly what you have provided to ParkingEye (and on what date).
d. Confirmation that you have not paid ParkingEye and will not do so.
Given the above, your email will not be treated as anything other than an incompetent, generic template wrongly describing a civil parking invoice as a statutory enforcement matter. I require written confirmation within 7 days that your records have been corrected and that no payment will be made to ParkingEye.
Yours faithfully,
[HIRER NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[RENTAL AGREEMENT/CONTRACT NUMBER]
[VEHICLE REG]
[ENTERPRISE REFERENCE]
Hello All.
I would be very grateful for your advice for a PCN I recently received.
I had a hire car. The Driver was parked in a Church car park for 10 minutes and 30 seconds. The Driver had driven in off the main road to sort out the sat nav. The date of the PCN was 17th Nov 2025. The Hirer received an email from the hire car company dated 24th Nov with summary details of the PCN they received from Parking Eye, and their admin charge.
On 1st Dec the Hirer received the PCN (Issued 20th Nov and dated 27th Nov) in the post directly from Parking Eye. £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days.
When the Driver drove into the car park there was no lighting around the building at all. It was like pitch black. Sunset on this date was around 4pm. The Driver remembers one floodlight coming on driving out of the location.
Photographs of the site were taken one evening. One cannot see ANY of the signs without a torch. Whilst some signs were fixed very high on a pole, others were lower down and attached to a fence. None could be seen because there was no lighting anywhere around the car park.
There was a sign on a pole at the entrance, however, it was not seen by the Driver at the time, and the Driver did not stop there anyway as it was not safe to do so. The Driver turned left into the location and the sign was on the right side of the entrance. It does state parking is for patrons only (it specifies the times), and, it also states parking is for patrons ONLY outside of those times.
All photographs taken had to be with the night function on the camera, otherwise nothing can be seen, including the signs.
You can see from the ANPR photographs only the number plates can be seen.
So far at the time of writing it has been 16 days since the date of issue (20th Nov).
The Hirer has not received any other correspondence from Parking Eye so far, and, neither have they contacted them.
The Hirer has read POFA but is a little confused over the law regards hire cars/agreements.
Thanking you in anticipation of your advice.
Then simply send the appeal as advised.
Hello All.
I would be very grateful for your advice for a PCN I recently received.
I had a hire car. The Driver was parked in a Church car park for 10 minutes and 30 seconds. The Driver had driven in off the main road to sort out the sat nav. The date of the PCN was 17th Nov 2025. The Hirer received an email from the hire car company dated 24th Nov with summary details of the PCN they received from Parking Eye, and their admin charge.
On 1st Dec the Hirer received the PCN (Issued 20th Nov and dated 27th Nov) in the post directly from Parking Eye. £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days.
When the Driver drove into the car park there was no lighting around the building at all. It was like pitch black. Sunset on this date was around 4pm. The Driver remembers one floodlight coming on driving out of the location.
Photographs of the site were taken one evening. One cannot see ANY of the signs without a torch. Whilst some signs were fixed very high on a pole, others were lower down and attached to a fence. None could be seen because there was no lighting anywhere around the car park.
There was a sign on a pole at the entrance, however, it was not seen by the Driver at the time, and the Driver did not stop there anyway as it was not safe to do so. The Driver turned left into the location and the sign was on the right side of the entrance. It does state parking is for patrons only (it specifies the times), and, it also states parking is for patrons ONLY outside of those times.
All photographs taken had to be with the night function on the camera, otherwise nothing can be seen, including the signs.
You can see from the ANPR photographs only the number plates can be seen.
So far at the time of writing it has been 16 days since the date of issue (20th Nov).
The Hirer has not received any other correspondence from Parking Eye so far, and, neither have they contacted them.
The Hirer has read POFA but is a little confused over the law regards hire cars/agreements.
Thanking you in anticipation of your advice.
When you received the Notice that was addressed to you from Parkingeye (not a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) addressed to the hire/lease company), did it include copies of the following documents with it?(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
I'm going to assume not, because these parking firms never do so, in breach of PoFA which means that they cannot hold the Hirer liable if the driver is not identified. However, I can see from your post that you are a bit naive about the requirement that you must never, EVER, identify the driver. Silly use of wording like "I did this or that", instead of "the driver did this or that" are the typical ways that most people proverbially blast both feet off with a single shot.
Whilst we wait to se both sides of the Notice your received (probably a Notice to Hirer (NtH)) and also the copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you received from thew Hire firm, you should appeal ONLY in your capacity as the Hirer (there is no legal obligation on you to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm) with the following wording. Do not try and be clever and edit anything. Appeal verbatim:QuoteI am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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.
They will come back to you with some rubbish about how you must give them the drivers details, which you can simply respond with the following:QuoteYour latest request for driver details is noted and dismissed. As the Hirer, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and you are well aware of this. Continuing to pester me for information you cannot compel is a waste of both our time. Either cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA code—where your chances of success are nil.
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
I am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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.
Your latest request for driver details is noted and dismissed. As the Hirer, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and you are well aware of this. Continuing to pester me for information you cannot compel is a waste of both our time. Either cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA code—where your chances of success are nil.