Free Traffic Legal Advice

Nothing for you to do... unless you want to give them a hard time. If so, you can respond with the following:

Dear ParkingEye Privacy Team / Appeals Team

Re: Parking Charge Notice 288486/335086
Date of event: 31 March 2025
Location: Milton Country Park
Hirer: [Your Full Name]
VRM: [Vehicle Registration]

Thank you for your letter.

You state that you rely on performance of a contract and legitimate interests as your lawful bases for processing my data. That position is flawed for the following reasons.

1. While a contract could potentially be formed with a driver, the land in question is governed by statutory byelaws made under section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968. As such, it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, even if a contract were formed, you cannot pursue anyone other than the driver, and there is no lawful basis to process the data of a registered keeper or hirer.

2. You did not invoke Schedule 4 of PoFA in your Notice to Hirer. You also failed to include the required documents under paragraph 13(2), namely the hire agreement and the statement of liability. Without these, you have no lawful basis to pursue me as the hirer.

3. You are relying on personal data obtained either from the DVLA or a hire company in order to pursue someone who cannot, in law, be liable. That is a misuse of personal data and a breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA, as well as a breach of Articles 5 and 6 of the UK GDPR.

4. Your claim to rely on legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) also fails the balancing test. You have no enforceable claim against the hirer, and my rights and interests as a data subject outweigh any interest you claim to have in pursuing this charge.

Your processing of my data is therefore unlawful. I now require, under Articles 17 and 18 of the UK GDPR:

• Erasure of all personal data you hold about me relating to this PCN
• Restriction of any further processing

You must either cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA code. If you continue to process my data without a lawful basis, I will submit formal complaints to the DVLA, the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the British Parking Association.

Yours faithfully

[Your Full Name]
Hirer of the vehicle
[Your Address or Email]

As it is an identical situation, then yes, just use the same appeal but with your own PCN reference number and any dates etc.

Thank you both very much. In light of the above, should I replace references to 'keeper' in the POPLA statement with ones to 'hirer? I notice this statement from the other post actually uses both - it refers to 'keeper' in the first para under 1., and then again before the conclusion, but uses 'hirer' in the third para under 1.

Thank you -I'll replace keeper with hirer in all instances then

Sorry, like an idiot I forgot to actually post the evidence from PE:

Case History
31/03/2025   Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
02/04/2025   Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
03/04/2025   DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
03/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
10/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
19/04/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
10/05/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
19/05/2025   Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
22/05/2025   Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
22/05/2025   Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
09/06/2025   Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA with FAQ's POFA
11/06/2025   Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
11/06/2025   Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
13/06/2025   Letter Issued - GDPR Request - With Appeal
13/06/2025   Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking Insufficient with FAQ's POFA

Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted when parking payments are made.

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

Payment Options: Payment Machine and Evology pay                     
Number of Paid Parking Machine: 1

Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

This car park has been registered with the British Parking Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

























Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source.  The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date.  Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team.  If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

As you are aware, we monitor Milton Country Park by the use of ANPR cameras and any motorist wishing to make use of the site must adhere to the terms and conditions displayed on the signage in situ. A parking contract is formed when the motorist enters the site, considers the terms and conditions on the signage, and chooses to remain. A parking charge will thereafter be issued should the terms and conditions of this parking contract be breached and it is our position that a motorist is bound by such a contract provided the terms were sufficiently brought to their attention.

It is our position that the signage in place on site at this location is sufficient for this purpose and that sight of the signs on site, even if their presence was a purported planning breach, would result in the motorist concluding that parking was subject to certain conditions. Motorists would also be placed on notice that breaching the same would reasonably result in enforcement action and we contend that the terms of any such enforcement action are clear.


Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 31/03/2025 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 03/04/2025 , therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

Postage is at the behest of the postal service and therefore any delays are outside of our control.

Please be advised it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking to cover the duration of their stay.

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
 

You can just copy and paste the following into the POPLA response webform:

ParkingEye has failed to address the most fundamental issue: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply at Milton Country Park because the land is not “relevant land”.

Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control under byelaws made under section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State. Land governed by statutory byelaws is specifically excluded from being “relevant land” under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of PoFA. That alone means ParkingEye cannot rely on PoFA to pursue anyone other than the driver.

Since the driver has not been identified, the charge must fail.

Even if the land had been relevant land (which it isn’t), ParkingEye has still failed to comply with the legal requirements to hold a Hirer liable under PoFA. The relevant sections are paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4. In order to transfer liability to the Hirer, ParkingEye was required to provide copies of the following documents with the Notice to Hirer:

- A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
- A copy of the hire agreement;
- A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement;
- A copy of the original Notice to Keeper.

They failed to include any of these documents. That is fatal to their case.

Instead, they keep referring to paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, which relates to Notices to Keeper — not Notices to Hirer. This is irrelevant, misleading, and legally wrong. You cannot rely on paragraph 9 to create liability for a Hirer.

To summarise:

- PoFA does not apply because the land is not relevant land.
- Even if it did, ParkingEye has not complied with paragraph 14.
- The driver has not been identified.
- There is no lawful basis to pursue me.

This appeal must be allowed.

Hello

Just wanted to say we've just heard the appeal was allowed. The text of the decision is as follows:

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN was issued correctly. The operator issued the PCN based on a lack of payment. The appellant raises the following which has persuaded me to allow then appeal: They say they have not identified the driver and nor is there any legal requirement to do so. They say the operator has failed to identify who was driving at the time and they cannot be held responsible for the actions of an unknown third party In this case the driver has not been identified and therefore, the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer for the PCN. The PCN was initially issued to **** and it advised the operator that **** had leased the vehicle. After sending the PCN to **** a representative of the company advised that the appellant **** was the driver of the vehicle. The operator issued a notice to driver to the appellant to pursue their liability as the driver. The appellant responded to the PCN advising they will not be naming the driver on 22 May 2025. The operator emailed the appellant on 9 June 2025 asking for the driver’s details and requesting them under PoFA 2012 and should they not be provided will be pursuing them as the registered keeper. However, both PCNs sent to the appellant were notice to driver’s only, therefore they cannot pursue any other party than the driver. In this case the driver was not identified, as such they cannot pursue any other party than the driver, without using PoFA 2012 and this then leads the PCN to be nul and void. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator has not met the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Thank you very much again for all of your help - I really appreciate it!