Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
« on: January 19, 2026, 10:42:59 am »
POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref]
Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
Operator: ParkingEye Ltd
1. Keeper position – no admission of driver and no keeper liability
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute this Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference may be drawn. ParkingEye is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity.
ParkingEye may only pursue the registered keeper if it has fully complied with every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator. As set out below, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA and therefore keeper liability cannot arise.
2. Failure to specify a period of parking – PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a)
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
The NtK does not specify any period of parking. It merely states the times at which ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site. These timestamps are not a period of parking in law and necessarily include time spent driving, manoeuvring, or queueing, when the vehicle was not parked.
As this is a mandatory requirement of PoFA and it has not been met, the NtK is non-compliant and cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
3. Failure to include a valid invitation to the keeper to pay – PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to include an invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge or, alternatively, to name the driver.
The NtK does not do this. Instead, it states that “the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full” and then instructs the keeper to name the driver if they were not driving. This wording does not invite the keeper to pay the charge in the alternative, as required by PoFA.
This is a further failure to comply with PoFA, and keeper liability cannot arise.
4. No contract capable of being formed – prohibitive signage
The prominent signage at the site states:
“3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours.”
This wording is prohibitive. Outside store hours, parking is forbidden rather than offered on contractual terms. A prohibition cannot form a contractual offer capable of acceptance, and therefore no contract can exist and no contractual parking charge can arise.
At most, any alleged issue would be a matter of trespass, which could only be pursued by the landowner and not by ParkingEye as a contractual claim.
5. Misleading barrier arrangement – lack of fair and transparent notice
This is a barrier-controlled car park. At the material time:
The entry barrier was raised when the vehicle entered
The exit barrier was raised when the vehicle left
On a barrier-controlled site, the position of the barriers is a key indicator of whether parking is permitted. An open entry barrier reasonably conveys that the car park is open and available for use.
If the store and car park were in fact closed, leaving the barrier open was misleading conduct and failed to provide fair and transparent notice of any restriction. This is contrary to basic consumer law principles and undermines any suggestion that the driver knowingly accepted or breached any parking terms.
6. Nonsensical “maximum stay” of 0 hours 0 minutes
The NtK asserts that the applicable “maximum stay” was “0 hours 0 minutes”.
This is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with. A term that is impossible to perform cannot form part of a valid contract. A Parking Charge Notice relying on such a description is unclear, defective, and unenforceable.
7. Conclusion
ParkingEye has failed to establish keeper liability due to multiple breaches of the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
Separately and in any event, no contract was capable of being formed due to prohibitive signage, misleading barrier arrangements, and an incoherent description of the alleged parking terms.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Would you make any changes to this or would this be fine?
Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
Operator: ParkingEye Ltd
1. Keeper position – no admission of driver and no keeper liability
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute this Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference may be drawn. ParkingEye is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity.
ParkingEye may only pursue the registered keeper if it has fully complied with every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator. As set out below, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA and therefore keeper liability cannot arise.
2. Failure to specify a period of parking – PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a)
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
The NtK does not specify any period of parking. It merely states the times at which ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site. These timestamps are not a period of parking in law and necessarily include time spent driving, manoeuvring, or queueing, when the vehicle was not parked.
As this is a mandatory requirement of PoFA and it has not been met, the NtK is non-compliant and cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
3. Failure to include a valid invitation to the keeper to pay – PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to include an invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge or, alternatively, to name the driver.
The NtK does not do this. Instead, it states that “the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full” and then instructs the keeper to name the driver if they were not driving. This wording does not invite the keeper to pay the charge in the alternative, as required by PoFA.
This is a further failure to comply with PoFA, and keeper liability cannot arise.
4. No contract capable of being formed – prohibitive signage
The prominent signage at the site states:
“3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours.”
This wording is prohibitive. Outside store hours, parking is forbidden rather than offered on contractual terms. A prohibition cannot form a contractual offer capable of acceptance, and therefore no contract can exist and no contractual parking charge can arise.
At most, any alleged issue would be a matter of trespass, which could only be pursued by the landowner and not by ParkingEye as a contractual claim.
5. Misleading barrier arrangement – lack of fair and transparent notice
This is a barrier-controlled car park. At the material time:
The entry barrier was raised when the vehicle entered
The exit barrier was raised when the vehicle left
On a barrier-controlled site, the position of the barriers is a key indicator of whether parking is permitted. An open entry barrier reasonably conveys that the car park is open and available for use.
If the store and car park were in fact closed, leaving the barrier open was misleading conduct and failed to provide fair and transparent notice of any restriction. This is contrary to basic consumer law principles and undermines any suggestion that the driver knowingly accepted or breached any parking terms.
6. Nonsensical “maximum stay” of 0 hours 0 minutes
The NtK asserts that the applicable “maximum stay” was “0 hours 0 minutes”.
This is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with. A term that is impossible to perform cannot form part of a valid contract. A Parking Charge Notice relying on such a description is unclear, defective, and unenforceable.
7. Conclusion
ParkingEye has failed to establish keeper liability due to multiple breaches of the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
Separately and in any event, no contract was capable of being formed due to prohibitive signage, misleading barrier arrangements, and an incoherent description of the alleged parking terms.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Would you make any changes to this or would this be fine?
