Free Traffic Legal Advice

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,

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.