Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone,

My dad recently received a penalty fine from Parking Eye for parking in Aldi. However, he was not the driver – my mum was driving the car at the time.

It was a new vehicle, and my mum didn’t know the number plate by heart. To make sure she got it right, she took a photo of the plate on her phone. Unfortunately, the picture was slightly unclear, and a part of the top of the plate was cut off. As a result, when she entered the registration number in the machine, she accidentally typed the letter “I” instead of “T”.

We are wondering what the best approach would be to appeal this fine. Should we explain the situation to Parking Eye, showing them the photo to demonstrate the honest mistake? Or would it be better for my dad to simply state that he was not the driver? If he says he wasn’t the driver, does he need to provide my mum's details?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and it also negates PoFA 9(2)(f) with the bold wording on the front which is also a breach of the PPSCoP. Because of that, even though they will dispute it, the Keeper cannot be liable and as long as the Keeper does not blab the drivers identity, they will not have any way to identify the driver.

Do you want to dispute it?

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and it also negates PoFA 9(2)(f) with the bold wording on the front which is also a breach of the PPSCoP. Because of that, even though they will dispute it, the Keeper cannot be liable and as long as the Keeper does not blab the drivers identity, they will not have any way to identify the driver.

Do you want to dispute it?

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

It sounds amazing that the NtK does not comply with PoFA. I am not familiar with the PoFA rules. If I want to dispute the fine, do I just need to state that I don’t know who the driver was, or do I need to mention all the specific PoFA non-compliance points?

Also, what are the chances of losing the dispute?

Thanks so much!

If an incorrect or partial VRM was entered, then their ANPR images would show that no vehicle with the incorrect or partial VRM was observed.

As for PoFA compliance, you can read it for yourself. However we have done all that for you and know what we are advising. You vacant either accept that advice and challenge the PCN or not.

When O say the NtK is not PoFA compliant, it isn’t. Whilst ParkingEye will not agree or, more likely, ignore the fact, there are several stages in the process where their error can be challenged.

Whilst ParkingEye wil rejected the initial appeal, there will be an opportunity to challenge the validity of the PCN with a supposedly “independent” appeal service, POPLA. If that is not successful, then decision is not binding on you and you can challenge any alleged debt in the small claims track of the county court, where you have the best chance at an impartial decision, assuming it ever got that far, which is unlikely in most cases.

Please stop referring to it as a “fine” or a “penalty”. I will personally give you £100 for every occurrence of those words in any documents you have received. It is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Just because they have invoiced you, does not mean that you owe them any money.

No one is asking the Keeper to lie about who was driving, even if the Keeper was the driver. The Keeper and the driver are separate legal entities and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

All the Keeper has to do is refer to the driver in the third party. No “I parked here or there”, only “the driver parked here or there”. Nobody except the driver knows who was driving and if ParkingEye has not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.

As any initial appeal is going to be rejected, simply follow this advice for now:

As long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed... There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying errors. - true but there's loads of payment machines out there that don't do this

I'm not sure that contradicts my point - the fact that loads of operators make no effort to reduce the probability of keying errors doesn't alter the fact it's something the code says they should do (I'm aware it's not a 'must', sadly). I get the point re. ANPR errors but here I still think a warning would be useful - it would alert the driver that something was wrong, either with the data he had input, or the parking company's systems.

Option 1 admit you think there may have been a keying error (you still don't have to name the driver), if you do that there will one of 3 outcomes, they reject you appeal, you get offered the £20 rate or they cancel it completely.

If I were arguing this point I'd try to argue it was a minor keying error that should see the charge cancelled, although the code suggests that's for similar looking characters (0 vs O, for example) so PE would be more likely to offer £20 I reckon.

Please show me a ParkingEye NtK that specifically invites (or any synonym of the word) the Keeper to pay the charge.

I don't think anyone is necessarily claiming it does, but instead outlining the potential benefits and pitfalls that may exist with each option. Pointing out that the specific point hasn't been tested in court (in this case happily due to other points prevailing, or parking companies backing down) is not the same as saying it wouldn't or shouldn't work.

This forum presents people with their options, and individuals may provide opinion on what they believe people ought to do, but we them let them make informed choices on that basis. If the OP wants to fight this all the way, more power to them and we'll all support them to do so. If they decide that reluctantly parting with £20 is preferable to the hassle (assuming it's offered), then that's unfortunate but understandable, and members will not chastise them for it.