** EDITED, thanks @jfollows **
The registered keeper (who was not the driver) received the following charge, it states 'Parking Charge Notice Reminder' however the first notice has never been received!
Having looked at the forum I've noticed a similar topic before, where
@DWMB2 advised that APCOA don't comply with Schedule 4 of POFA, this is Parkingeye
Can I use the same defence, there seems to be some differences in the PCN's?
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Parking Eye, not APCOA.
However, Parking Eye does not appear to be using PoFA 2012, indeed.
Thanks for pointing that out, this is Broadway Retail Park whereas that was Broad Street Plaza, both in Halifax.
Can I still use the same defence?
ParkingEye never refer to PoFA in a reminder. It is the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that counts. Reminders are irrelevant. What we have seen is a reminder, hence no mention of PoFA.
We know for a fact that ParkingEye always use PoFA in their original NtKs. It is never fully compliant as they always fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), but trying to convince them otherwise POPLA is a bit of a no-go. In court it would be a different matter, as long as it was explained why,
The alleged contravention is that the vehicle was not an EV but parked in an EV charging bay for around 26 minutes. Is that the case?
Hi b789,
Many thanks for responding, yes that is correct ref the EV charging bay, I have not been sent the original NtK.
I have looked at their evidence on their website where they have shared the images, please see attached. You can see the images are very dark, there is no evidence where the car is parked and they are relying on this only to claim the car was parked in an EV bay.
There is nothing else apart from the reminder notice that I shared earlier.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So why did the driver park a non EV in an EV charging bay?
In all honesty, I don't know 100% as I'm only the registered keeper, they are telling me they didn't realise, it was late in the evening and they went for a bobba tea!
There are a number of bays and they claim they've seen other people park their non-ev vehicles there albeit at other times.
SO, there's no evidence of the vehicle parked in an EV bay. Are you sure there are not other images on their website? Perhaps if you posted their evidence pack on Google Drive, we could have a look and have a better idea of your options.
There is no evidence pack, I've logged onto their appeals page and the only options I have are as per the image below, when I click on 'view photographic evidence', I am shown the pics I shared earlier that show the cars reg number, it does not show anything else.
I asked the driver to go back to site and they are 90% certain that they did not park on the EV bays, they parked in the bays next to the EV bays, once again see pics attached grabbed from the video they shared.
At the risk of repeating myself, this is the only letter I've received, nothing else, plus it looks like someone took pics of the car but did not take any other pics?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So, appeal with the following:
I am the registered keeper of vehicle [REGISTRATION], and I am writing in response to your Parking Charge Notice Reminder (Ref: [REFERENCE]).
I note that no original Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been received. As such, you have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which requires a compliant NtK to be served within the prescribed timeframe and to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Furthermore, your photographic evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in an EV charging bay. The images do not show the location of the vehicle relative to any signage or bay markings, nor do they establish that any contravention occurred.
As you have not established keeper liability and have failed to provide adequate evidence of the alleged breach, I require that this charge be cancelled. Should you choose to reject this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Thanks so much for this, I have appealed, let's see what they come back with.
Parkingeye have rejected my appeal and issued a POPLA code, I was surprised at how quickly especially as they did not even send a NtK and the photographic evidence is so poor, what are they trying to achieve? Do they have that much confidence in POPLA finding in their favour?
You have 33 days from the rejection date of the initial appeal to submit your POPLA appeal. Just do a search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals to get an idea on how to put one together.
Show us before you send anything.
Having searched the forum, I have cobbled together the following POPLA appeal, copying mainly b789’s comments. I’ve focussed on the fact that I did not receive a NtK and their photos don’t show the vehicle parked in the EV bays, any guidance/help would be appreciated:
==================
POPLA Ref:
ParkingEye PCN Ref:
VRN:
No Notice to Keeper (NtK). No original Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been received. As such, ParkingEye have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which requires a compliant NtK to be served within the prescribed timeframe and to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c). PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to describe:
• How the parking charge arose.
• How the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver.
In this case, no NtK has been received so ParkingEye's NtK fails to meet these requirements.
Appellant not being the individual liable. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As no NtK has been received, the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
I put the operator to strict proof that:
• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the registered keeper, for this charge.
Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention. The evidence provided by ParkingEye consists solely of two photographs showing the vehicle parked in a bay, the images do not show the location of the vehicle relative to any signage or bay markings, nor do they establish that any contravention occurred. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in an EV charging bay, therefore ParkingEye has failed to provide any proof of the specific location where the vehicle was parked within the car park.
As a result, ParkingEye has not sufficiently evidenced that a contravention occurred, and this appeal must be upheld.
===============
No idea why you have fixated on PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as that would only apply if you had received the original NtK. I suggest you concentrate on the following points, in this order:
The Keeper was not the driver
No original NtK received
Put them to strict proof of posting the original NtK
No evidence of any contravention.
Put them to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner to issue PCNs in their own name.
So, try the following:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm and I decline to do so.
No original Notice to Keeper received
As the Keeper, I cannot be liable as no original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was received. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), ParkingEye may only hold the keeper liable if a compliant NtK is posted to arrive within the relevant period (14 days for ANPR cases). I assert that no such notice was received.
Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that where an Act authorises service by post, service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying, and posting the document — and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time it would ordinarily be delivered. That presumption is rebuttable, and I rebut it here by stating that no NtK was received.
The burden now shifts to ParkingEye to prove actual posting. It is not sufficient to rely on system-generated timestamps or internal logs showing that a notice was “generated”. The BPA/IPC PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2, reinforces this requirement:
“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).”
I put ParkingEye to strict proof that:
• The NtK was handed to a mail consolidator or postal service on a specific date.
• It was posted in time to arrive within the relevant period.
Without such evidence, the presumption of service is rebutted and keeper liability cannot be established.
No Evidence of Any Contravention
ParkingEye has failed to provide any evidence that a contravention occurred. The only images supplied are:
• ANPR photographs showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park.
• A close-up, very dark image of the rear (or possibly the front) of the vehicle taken at night, with no visible signage, bay markings, or identifiable location.
These images do not show the vehicle parked in an EV charging bay, nor do they demonstrate that any terms and conditions were breached. There is no photographic evidence of the vehicle’s position within the car park, no indication of any signage that was visible to the driver, and no proof that the vehicle was parked in a restricted or designated bay.
ANPR systems record entry and exit times, not bay-level activity. Without clear, timestamped images showing the vehicle parked in breach of specific terms, ParkingEye has failed to meet the evidential burden required to enforce a charge.
In the absence of any evidence of a contravention, the charge must be cancelled.
ParkingEye is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Agree x 1
View List