Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello

Just wanted to say we've just heard the appeal was allowed. The text of the decision is as follows:

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN was issued correctly. The operator issued the PCN based on a lack of payment. The appellant raises the following which has persuaded me to allow then appeal: They say they have not identified the driver and nor is there any legal requirement to do so. They say the operator has failed to identify who was driving at the time and they cannot be held responsible for the actions of an unknown third party In this case the driver has not been identified and therefore, the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer for the PCN. The PCN was initially issued to **** and it advised the operator that **** had leased the vehicle. After sending the PCN to **** a representative of the company advised that the appellant **** was the driver of the vehicle. The operator issued a notice to driver to the appellant to pursue their liability as the driver. The appellant responded to the PCN advising they will not be naming the driver on 22 May 2025. The operator emailed the appellant on 9 June 2025 asking for the driver’s details and requesting them under PoFA 2012 and should they not be provided will be pursuing them as the registered keeper. However, both PCNs sent to the appellant were notice to driver’s only, therefore they cannot pursue any other party than the driver. In this case the driver was not identified, as such they cannot pursue any other party than the driver, without using PoFA 2012 and this then leads the PCN to be nul and void. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator has not met the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Thank you very much again for all of your help - I really appreciate it!

Sorry, like an idiot I forgot to actually post the evidence from PE:

Case History
31/03/2025   Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
02/04/2025   Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
03/04/2025   DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
03/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
10/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
19/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
10/05/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
19/05/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
22/05/2025   Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
22/05/2025   Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
09/06/2025   Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA with FAQ's POFA
11/06/2025   Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
11/06/2025   Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
13/06/2025   Letter Issued - GDPR Request - With Appeal
13/06/2025   Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking Insufficient with FAQ's POFA

Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted when parking payments are made.

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

Payment Options: Payment Machine and Evology pay                     
Number of Paid Parking Machine: 1

Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

This car park has been registered with the British Parking Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

























Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source.  The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date.  Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team.  If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

As you are aware, we monitor Milton Country Park by the use of ANPR cameras and any motorist wishing to make use of the site must adhere to the terms and conditions displayed on the signage in situ. A parking contract is formed when the motorist enters the site, considers the terms and conditions on the signage, and chooses to remain. A parking charge will thereafter be issued should the terms and conditions of this parking contract be breached and it is our position that a motorist is bound by such a contract provided the terms were sufficiently brought to their attention.

It is our position that the signage in place on site at this location is sufficient for this purpose and that sight of the signs on site, even if their presence was a purported planning breach, would result in the motorist concluding that parking was subject to certain conditions. Motorists would also be placed on notice that breaching the same would reasonably result in enforcement action and we contend that the terms of any such enforcement action are clear.


Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 31/03/2025 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 03/04/2025 , therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

Postage is at the behest of the postal service and therefore any delays are outside of our control.

Please be advised it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking to cover the duration of their stay.

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
 

Thank you -I'll replace keeper with hirer in all instances then

Hello

We have now as predicted had the appeal rejected by ParkingEyE. Here is the text of their response:

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 31 March 2025 at
16:23, at Milton Country Park, Milton car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal and can see that a payment to park
was made on the date of the event. Unfortunately, the tariff purchased was insufficient
and did not cover the entire duration of the stay. The terms and conditions and tariffs are
outlined on the signage which are on display throughout the car park.
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.ombudsman-
services.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.

I understand the next thing to do is to submit a POPLA appeal. Given the similarity with the other case in this forum (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-milton-country-park-cambridge/30/) I wondered if a verbatim version of what was submitted there would work - that is:

Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable to Milton Country Park

2. Driver not identified – No presumption of driver liability

1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4. The land is not “relevant land” as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and therefore, the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified.

ParkingEye are attempting to hold me liable as the registered keeper, despite this being a location where keeper liability cannot be established under PoFA.

Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to hold me liable as Hirer.

2. Driver not identified
At no stage have I identified the driver, nor is there any legal requirement to do so. ParkingEye have failed to demonstrate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.

As keeper, I cannot be held liable for a charge incurred by an unknown third party at a location not covered by PoFA.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

The only thing is I am fairly sure I am not the registered keeper, since the vehicle is a lease, so also not sure if it is correct to say that Parking Eye are seeking to hold me liable as registered keeper? Looking back at their original PCN it doesn't seem to make mention of either keeper or hirer...

As above, all the help on this forum very much appreciated.

Thank you very much indeed! Hugely enjoyed looking up the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram

Thank you very much for all the advice. I will respond to them with the message, and then probably need to ask for more advice when it escalates to POPLA. Really appreciate the help on this forum!

That sounds reassuring, thank you very much!

On the other thread (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-milton-country-park-cambridge) it looks like Parking Eye are rejecting the response:

"Please note, it is Parkingeye’s position that this charge was issued following a contractual breach of the terms and conditions in operation onsite, and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA. Please note that our lawful bases for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. Parkingeye do not rely on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges. We are registered with the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.
 
We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request that we remove data from our system and cease processing in this instance at this stage, and can confirm that your appeal has now been passed back to our dedicated Appeals Team for further consideration.
 
Please note you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO in respect of this response, should you wish to do so. You may also seek a judicial remedy.
 
For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/"

They're also rejecting the appeal and referring the poster to POPLA.

Sorry to duplicate things but these cases are nearly identical, hence reposting. Does this response change people's view of this PCN?

No, only the single page letter above