3
« on: August 06, 2025, 10:20:04 pm »
Having searched the forum, I have cobbled together the following POPLA appeal, copying mainly b789’s comments. I’ve focussed on the fact that I did not receive a NtK and their photos don’t show the vehicle parked in the EV bays, any guidance/help would be appreciated:
==================
POPLA Ref:
ParkingEye PCN Ref:
VRN:
No Notice to Keeper (NtK). No original Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been received. As such, ParkingEye have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which requires a compliant NtK to be served within the prescribed timeframe and to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
The operator 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.
The operator 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.
Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c). PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to describe:
• How the parking charge arose.
• How the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver.
In this case, no NtK has been received so ParkingEye's NtK fails to meet these requirements.
Appellant not being the individual liable. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As no NtK has been received, the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
I put the operator to strict proof that:
• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the registered keeper, for this charge.
Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention. The evidence provided by ParkingEye consists solely of two photographs showing the vehicle parked in a bay, the images do not show the location of the vehicle relative to any signage or bay markings, nor do they establish that any contravention occurred. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in an EV charging bay, therefore ParkingEye has failed to provide any proof of the specific location where the vehicle was parked within the car park.
As a result, ParkingEye has not sufficiently evidenced that a contravention occurred, and this appeal must be upheld.
===============
Show Posts
