Re: PCN [reference] / Vehicle [VRM]
Dear ParkingEye Team,
I acknowledge your letter dated [date].
As the registered keeper, I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I will not be doing so.
Your correspondence suggests you intend to pursue the keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That is misconceived because your Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant, including (but not limited to) the following mandatory failures:1. Paragraph 9(2)(a): you have not specified any period of parking. You have provided only ANPR entry/exit timestamps, which are not a period of parking.
2. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): your Notice to Keeper does not include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. Instead it demands payment from the driver and attempts to compel the keeper to name the driver.
As a result, you cannot transfer liability to the keeper. There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver, and I will not enter into any discussion about driver identity.
You have stated the appeal is “on hold” for 28 days. The correct outcome is now straightforward: either cancel the charge, or issue a POPLA verification code so that the matter can be referred to independent appeal. If you reject the appeal, please ensure your rejection letter includes the POPLA code.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
Subject: Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref] – Vehicle [VRM]
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
There will be no admission as to who was driving and you must not make any inference or assumption. You are put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. Your Notice to Keeper can only transfer liability to the keeper if every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is met; the burden is entirely on ParkingEye to demonstrate full compliance.
In fact your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4.
1. Paragraph 9(2)(a) – no period of parking
Your notice does not specify any “period of parking” as required. It merely states the times at which ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site. Those are not, in law, the same thing as a period of parking, and they include time spent driving, queueing, or otherwise not parked. The mandatory requirement of 9(2)(a) is therefore not met.
2. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) – no invitation to the keeper to pay
Your notice does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead it states that “the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full” and demands that, if the keeper was not the driver, they must name the driver and pass the notice to them. That wording is not what Parliament prescribed in 9(2)(e)(i) and it does not invite the keeper to pay the charge in the alternative. As such, the condition in 9(2)(e)(i) is not satisfied and keeper liability cannot arise.
Given these failures, ParkingEye cannot hold the keeper liable under PoFA. There is also no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver, nor can liability be imposed on the keeper under any supposed law of agency. Your Notice to Keeper can only ever have effect against the driver.
Separately and in any event, no contract was capable of being formed at this site. The prominent signage states “3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours.” This is a prohibition, not an offer of parking on terms. Outside store hours parking is simply forbidden, so no contractual licence is offered and no contractual parking charge can arise. At most, any issue would be a matter of alleged trespass for the landowner, not a contractual claim for £100 by ParkingEye.
At the material time the entry barrier was raised and the exit barrier was raised when the vehicle left. On a barrier-controlled site, the position of the barriers is a key part of how the operator indicates whether the car park is open. An open entry barrier reasonably indicates that the site is available for use. If the store and car park were in fact closed, leaving the barrier open was misleading and failed to give fair and transparent notice of any restriction.
Your own notice then asserts that the applicable “maximum stay” was “0 hours 0 minutes”. That is self-evidently incoherent and incapable of forming a clear parking term which any reasonable motorist could understand or comply with. A Parking Charge Notice relying on such a nonsensical “maximum stay” is void and unenforceable.
In light of (a) the NtK’s clear non-compliance with PoFA 2012, and (b) the prohibitive signage, misleading barrier arrangements and defective description of the alleged contravention, there is no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for this charge. I will not be naming the driver.
Please confirm that the Parking Charge has been cancelled. If you refuse, I require a POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter to independent appeal.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered keeper
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.