Free Traffic Legal Advice

ParkingEye were clearly advised in both the initial appeal and again in the POPLA appeal that their Notice to Hirer was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and that they therefore had no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. They ignored that point at the time, but have now confirmed in their own evidence pack, on the 6th page, that this Parking Charge was not issued under PoFA. This confirms that they cannot rely on any provisions under that statute to transfer liability. That leaves only one possible liable party: the driver. However, ParkingEye have provided no evidence whatsoever to show who the driver was. There is no identification, no admission, and no photographic or documentary evidence that points to the Hirer being the driver.

The law is absolutely clear on this. In the absence of a valid PoFA notice, liability cannot be transferred. Furthermore, there is no legal presumption that a Hirer or Keeper was the driver, and courts have repeatedly confirmed that no such assumption can be made. In the case of VCS v Edward (2023), a Circuit Judge ruled that a parking company cannot rely on any presumption or even the balance of probabilities to argue that the registered keeper—or, by extension, the hirer—was the driver. That same principle applies here. POPLA is reminded that unless the operator can show actual proof of who was driving, they cannot pursue anyone else. As ParkingEye have chosen not to rely on PoFA and cannot identify the driver, there is no lawful basis for this charge to be upheld.

A key issue raised in the appeal was whether the terms on the signage are supported by the landowner’s authority. ParkingEye have now provided a letter of authority dated 9th September 2021 from ASDA Stores Ltd. That letter confirms a single parking restriction: a maximum stay of 3 hours, plus a redacted grace period. It makes no reference whatsoever to any one-hour restriction between 9pm and 7am, and no mention at all of reduced time limits on match days or event days. This is important because ParkingEye’s signage imposes additional restrictions that are not backed up by the landowner’s agreement. They are enforcing terms that do not form part of the landowner’s authorisation and have provided no contract variation or updated agreement to justify these extra restrictions. POPLA is reminded that an operator cannot enforce parking terms that exceed what the landowner has permitted.

In addition to this, ParkingEye have ignored the point made in the appeal about the vagueness of the signage. The signs refer to “match day” or “event day” rules without defining those terms or providing any way for a motorist to know when those rules apply. There is no calendar, no on-site notice, and nothing to tell a driver whether reduced time limits are in effect on any given day. This creates uncertainty and confusion, and fails the requirement for clear and transparent terms. ParkingEye have not responded to this issue at all and have given no explanation as to how a motorist would be expected to interpret or comply with those ambiguous restrictions.

In conclusion, ParkingEye have failed to rebut the core grounds of the appeal. They have now admitted that PoFA does not apply, confirming that they cannot hold the Hirer liable. They have provided no evidence of who was driving and have ignored binding case law that prevents any assumption being made. They have also failed to demonstrate that the signage terms they are enforcing were authorised by the landowner, and have not addressed the serious ambiguity in those signs. As such, the operator has not met the burden of proof and the appeal must be allowed.