Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good Morning,

Could you'll advise if the reason for date mis-match enough grounds for getting this PCN cancelled.

Thank you.

I also have an outstanding PCN for Lambeth at the Kennington Oval. What was the outcome for you please?

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lambeth-code-52-no-motor-vehicles-kennington-oval/new/?topicseen#new

Yes. Tribunal time?

Unsure on this one. What are my chances? Are they likely to cancel because of the website/discrepancies? I don't want to pay £160

Much appreciated @John U.K. 👍🏼

I know I use The Invisible Man image as a logo but even I cannot see their NOR. 

  @Hippocrates
For some reason, the images aren't embedding. I'm doing exactly the same as I always do so will keep trying...

Doesn't really matter as it was unlikely you would have been successful at POPLA with the appeal grounds you used with Parkingeye. Nothing more you can do now until a letter of claim turns up which you can't afford to ignore. When that arrives come back here for further advice.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification, will do.

Did you ever get an appeal response with a POPLA code?

@InterCity125 @b789

Update: I've just found the POPLA code in my emails and realised I missed the deadline

Please advise on wording for a safe Letter Before Claim response (30 days, online reply only).

Thanks in advance!

You can respond to that phishing exercise with the following:

Quote

Re: Parking Charge Notice [ref]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to your letter dated 28 November 2025.

First, your assertion that I “stated that [I was] not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach” is entirely false. I said no such thing. My appeal made it perfectly clear that I am the registered keeper, that I dispute the charge, and that there would be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no inferences or assumptions could be drawn.

Your attempt to rewrite my appeal into something it never said is, at best, sloppily incompetent and, at worst, deliberately mendacious. It gives the distinct impression that nobody at ParkingEye has actually read my appeal and that you are simply spraying out boilerplate bluster in the hope that keepers will be bullied into naming a driver.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be identifying the driver. There is no legal obligation on a registered keeper to disclose a driver’s identity and you have no entitlement to that personal data.

You then recite selected snippets from Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as if parroting paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) somehow cures the other defects in your Notice to Keeper. It does not. Keeper liability can only arise where an operator has complied with ALL the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, not just the ones it finds convenient to quote after the event. Your NtK is not fully compliant with all of those requirements; partial or “substantial” compliance is insufficient in law. Consequently, you cannot transfer liability for this charge from the unknown driver to me as keeper.

My position is therefore unchanged:

• I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
• I will not be naming the driver.
• You cannot rely on Schedule 4 PoFA to pursue me as keeper.

You must now either cancel this charge or issue a POPLA code without further prevarication. Any continued attempt to misrepresent my appeal, to misstate the effect of PoFA, or to pursue me as if I were liable despite your own non-compliant paperwork will simply form part of a formal complaint to your client and the relevant regulatory and supervisory bodies.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

@b789 I sent the above to ParkingEye as you suggested. This "Letter Before County Court Claim" arrived from ParkingEye today (23.1.26):




I'd appreciate your guidance on next steps. Thanks!

Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?

No, I haven't