Free Traffic Legal Advice

That is NOT an appeal rejection. Please read it carefully.

Here is a suitable response:

Quote

Subject: Your Failure to Address the Non-Compliance of Your Notice to Keeper

Dear ParkingEye,

I refer to your recent response, which entirely misses the point of my original appeal. It seems your appeal team has either failed to read or failed to understand my grounds for disputing this charge. I will now spell it out for you as clearly as possible.

I specifically stated that your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your response rambles on about Paragraph 9(2)(f), but the non-compliance I referenced relates to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

For clarity:

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

You cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or

• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

ParkingEye cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

With the above in mind, I respectfully request you uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN or provide me with a POPLA code so that I can raise the matter further.

Thanks again- good point about the correspondence not actually being an appeal rejection. I have submitted the above and will update when I get a response!

If you compare the back of the original and the reminder, you will see the difference. It is as expected but we needed to confirm. For now, makes no difference to the suggested appeal.

We don’t need to see any reminders or debt collector letters.

Thanks: I've submitted the appeal using the exact wording you provided and I'll update with the response as soon as I get one.

Vehicle has received a PCN relating to parking in an Asda car park (driver was waiting for the store to open). Car park signage states a 3 hour maximum stay or 1.5 hours on a match day (which I don't believe it was)

Driver was away for the last few weeks so frustratingly has missed the initial letter and the 14 day discount. Any advice for how to proceed and appeal?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pleased to say that the council have cancelled the PCN- very grateful for your assistance! Thought I'd post the response here for reference: still not really addressed the point regarding the footway/kerb not being lowered in that area, but a good outcome all the same.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi: was advised to check here for help appealing a PCN received a few days ago. The driver has been issued a PCN by Salford Council whilst parked on a residential street. The PCN is for code 27: "Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway".

Attached is the PCN and SV images. I've had some advice from a couple of people on Pepipoo already who seem hopeful that an appeal might be successful (linked below also): but would be really grateful on any assistance in what to write to ensure this has the best chance of being cancelled.

PCN

Pepipoo Thread

Streetview

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]