As the registered keeper, this is an appeal against the Parking Charge Notice PCN issued by ParkingEye for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions in ASDA, Quinton car park, on 6th February 2025.
For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.
Summary of appeal:
1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability
2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver
3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage
4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority
1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability
ParkingEye claims that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, a close analysis of the notice demonstrates that it is not fully compliant with PoFA, and since compliance must be absolute for Keeper liability to apply, this means the operator has no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for the charge.
Just as a person cannot be “a bit pregnant,” a Notice to Keeper cannot be “a bit PoFA compliant.” It either fully complies with ALL statutory requirements, or it does not—and in this case, it does not.
The two primary failures of PoFA compliance in this NtK are:
(i) Failure to Include a Mandatory Invitation for the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states that a Notice to Keeper must:
“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the creditor with a statement.”
However, this NtK does not include an explicit invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. Instead, it merely states that:
• If the Keeper was not the driver, they should provide the driver’s details.
• The Keeper should pass the notice to the driver.
This omission is crucial because PoFA does not allow for any inferred obligation on the Keeper to pay the charge. The law requires an explicit invitation to do so. ParkingEye’s NtK does not contain such an invitation, meaning it fails to FULLY comply with PoFA. Since the statutory test is absolute (full) compliance, this failure alone voids Keeper liability.
(ii) Contradictory and Misleading Payment Deadline – PoFA 9(2)(f) and 9(6)PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that an NtK must:
"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—"
This means the correct timeline for liability and payment under PoFA is:
• The NtK is issued on Day 0.
• It is deemed “given” (received) on Day 2 (two working days later, per PoFA 9(6)).
• The Keeper has 28 full days starting from Day 3 before any liability can arise.
However, the front of the NtK states in large, bold text:
"PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: Ł100.00 PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED."
This is factually incorrect and legally misleading because:
• The demand for payment begins from the issue date, rather than from the day after the date the notice is given.
• The correct timeline under PoFA starts from the day after the notice is given, meaning ParkingEye is demanding payment before it is legally due under PoFA.
This is not a minor mistake. It is a fundamental contradiction that invalidates Keeper liability because ParkingEye’s demand is unlawful and unenforceable under PoFA.
Even if the correct PoFA wording does appear somewhere on the back of the notice, this does not resolve the contradiction. The fact that two conflicting payment deadlines exist on the same notice creates legal uncertainty, which cannot be resolved in ParkingEye’s favour. A document that is legally flawed on its face cannot be “rescued” by contradictory small print.
The bold, prominent wording on the front of the NtK is incorrect and in direct contradiction with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), which states:
"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected."
By stating "PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE
ISSUED," ParkingEye’s NtK:
• Misleads the recipient into believing that payment is due earlier than legally required.
• Conflicts with the back of the notice, which attempts to apply the correct PoFA timeline.
• Breaches PPSCoP, invalidating the entire PCN.
Since compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP must be absolute, this flawed notice cannot be relied upon to transfer liability to the Keeper.
2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver
Even if ParkingEye had issued a fully PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) (which they have not), they have provided no evidence that the Keeper was the driver on the day in question.
The legal position is clear: keeper liability is entirely separate from driver liability. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) only allows an operator to hold the Keeper liable if the NtK is FULLY compliant with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4. Since ParkingEye has failed to fully comply with PoFA in multiple ways as shown in section 1 above, the only person who could be liable is the driver.
However, ParkingEye has provided no evidence as to who that driver was.
The Operator Cannot Simply Infer the Keeper was Driving
ParkingEye cannot simply infer or assume that the registered Keeper was the driver. Neither can the POPLA assessor. There is no legal presumption in PoFA or civil contract law that the Keeper and the driver are the same person. PoFA does not place any obligation on the Keeper to disclose the identity of the driver, nor does it allow the operator to transfer liability without either full compliance with PoFA or direct proof of driver identity.
The only way ParkingEye could prove that the Keeper was also the driver is if the Keeper voluntarily admitted to being the driver. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to do so, and in this case, has not done so.
In the persuasive appellate court ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], HHJ Gargan explicitly stated in his conclusion at paragraph 35.3:
"It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers [who] are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. Or there may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of both family cars and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their spouse regularly drives the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion."
This ruling destroys any argument that ParkingEye or POPLA can simply “infer or assume” on the balance of probability that the Keeper was also the driver. The judgment confirms that there are multiple realistic scenarios in which the Keeper was not the driver, and unless ParkingEye can provide actual evidence (such as a direct admission from the Keeper), no such inference can be drawn.
This ruling is has already been relied upon in multiple parking-related cases at the County Court level. If ParkingEye were to escalate this matter to court, they would struggle to argue against this ruling, as it provides a clear, logical, and legally sound analysis of why simply being the Keeper does not equate to being the driver.
Since ParkingEye has failed to establish Keeper liability under PoFA, and the Keeper has not admitted to being the driver, they have no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for this charge.
The appeal must therefore be upheld.
3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage
The signage at this car park is unclear, poorly presented, and fails to form a contract in line with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
• The charge amount is not prominently displayed, and key terms are buried in dense text.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms to be fair and transparent—this signage fails that test.
Since no valid contract can be formed, no charge is payable.
4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority
ParkingEye is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, up-to-date contract with the landowner that grants them the right to issue parking charges at this location.
The burden of proof is on the operator to establish that they have landowner authority, and it is a requirement under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 7.1.1, which states:
"The parking operator must have written authority from the landowner (or their appointed agent) that provides clear authorisation to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement (including issuing and enforcing parking charges) on the land in question."
Furthermore, PPSCoP Section 7.1.3 requires that:
"The written authority must include the duration of the contract and any conditions or restrictions placed on parking enforcement and operational activity, including any changes to the terms of parking applicable to drivers."
The key point here is that any changes to the terms and conditions for drivers must be reflected in the landowner contract.
The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that the Landowner Contract is Valid and Reflects Any Changes to the Parking Terms
It is entirely possible—if not likely—that the terms and conditions of parking for drivers at this location have materially changed since the original landowner contract with ParkingEye was agreed.
For example, but not limited to:
• The maximum free parking period may have changed (e.g., from 2 hours to 90 minutes).
• The parking charge amount may have increased.
• Additional restrictions may have been introduced that were not originally permitted under the landowner agreement.
If any of these types of changes have occurred, ParkingEye must prove that the landowner contract was amended to reflect these changes. A mere signed witness statement from ParkingEye does not satisfy this requirement. The operator must provide a contemporaneous, unredacted contract that:
1. Covers the exact terms in place on the date of the alleged contravention.
2. Explicitly authorises ParkingEye to issue parking charges under the precise terms that appear on the signage.
3. Confirms that the landowner has agreed to any subsequent amendments to the parking conditions.
If ParkingEye fails to provide concrete documentary evidence that their contract fully aligns with the parking terms on the signage, then their authority to issue this PCN is void.
Some POPLA assessors have previously used the flawed reasoning that because the operator’s signage remains in place, this somehow means that the landowner contract must still be valid. This is not a legally sound argument and completely ignores the possibility that the terms and conditions for drivers may have materially changed, while the landowner contract has not been updated to reflect those changes.
There could be multiple reasons why an operator’s signage remaining in place does not confirm that the underlying landowner contract is still legally valid:
• The terms of parking for drivers may have changed, such as a reduction in the maximum stay period, an increase in the parking charge, or the introduction of additional restrictions (e.g., a change in grace periods). If these changes were not incorporated into the landowner contract, then ParkingEye has no legal authority to enforce those new terms.
• The landowner may not have actively reviewed or updated the contract, meaning the terms ParkingEye is enforcing do not match what was originally agreed upon.
• The contract may have expired and simply not been renewed, yet the operator continues enforcement under outdated terms.
• The landowner may be unaware that the operator has made unilateral changes to the enforcement policy, such as altering consideration or grace periods or modifying charges without obtaining explicit landowner approval.
The list is not exhaustive. If the contract does not explicitly authorise ParkingEye to enforce the precise parking terms currently displayed on the signage, then their entire enforcement action is invalid.
It is not enough for the operator or POPLA to say, “the landowner allows signs to remain”. That does not prove that the actual contractual authority is still valid and reflective of the current driver terms and conditions.
For these reasons, ParkingEye is put to strict proof that a valid, up-to-date contract exists that authorises them to issue charges under the exact terms displayed on the signage at the time of the alleged contravention. If they fail to provide this, then POPLA must allow this appeal and instruct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is invalid and must be cancelled due to multiple critical failures by ParkingEye:
1. Failure to Fully Comply with PoFA – The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, meaning Keeper liability cannot apply. Just as a person cannot be “a bit pregnant,” an NtK cannot be “a bit” PoFA-compliant. ParkingEye’s PoFA failures are clearly identified and render the charge unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – ParkingEye has provided zero proof of driver identity, and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to disclose this information. The persuasive ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) confirms that it is not appropriate to infer that a Keeper was the driver. Without such proof, ParkingEye has no legal basis to pursue the charge.
3. Misleading and Contradictory Payment Deadline – The NtK falsely demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, contradicting PoFA 9(2)(f) and 9(6) and breaching PPSCoP 8.1.2(e). This misleading demand invalidates the charge.
4. Unclear and Inadequate Signage – The signage fails the Beavis transparency test, with key terms buried in dense text and failing to establish a fair contract with the driver.
5. No Proof of Valid Landowner Authority – The operator is put to strict proof that its contract with the landowner is valid, up-to-date, and reflects any changes to the driver terms and conditions. A mere signed statement is not sufficient.
Given these fatal flaws, ParkingEye has no legal basis to pursue the Keeper or enforce this charge. POPLA must uphold this appeal and instruct ParkingEye to cancel the PCN immediately.
Agree x 1
View List