3. 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's  (Read 423 times)

0 Members and 123 Guests are viewing this topic.

3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« on: »
Hi, i stupidly got 3 pcn's from Parking Eye for overstaying the 3 hour time limit and after reading some of the threads on here saying some PE NTK's weren't PoFA compliant i just wondered if these were or not and if I had any grounds to appeal them on that basis? Any help/advice appreciated.
Thanks.





Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #1 on: »
Typically Parking Eye thinks its invoices are compliant with PoFA when it includes a section on the topic on the rear, as yours do.
There is a technical argument that, even so, they’re not compliant but this would probably need to be tested in court with no guarantees of success.
Logged
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #2 on: »
Were you a customer of Lidl?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #3 on: »
No i wasn't unfortunately, i just stupidly didn't realise there was a limit in the Lidl car park.
Logged
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #4 on: »
No flaws with pcn's worth trying to appeal with? If not, i need to pay discounted rate in a couple of days for 1st one.
Thanks.
Logged
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #5 on: »
It's up to you. Whilst the NtKs are substantially compliant with PoFA, they are not fully compliant. I use this analogy to explain why they aren't...

Just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, an NtK cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA complaint. It is a binary issue. It either is or it isn't. In this case it isn't and therefore liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.

This is the reason the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA:

Quote
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. 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.

It's up to you to decide whether you think that you have a defence as the Keeper as it is likely that ParkingEye will pursue this all the way to a claim.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #6 on: »
Hi, hope someone can clarify things for me. Received these two reminders from Parking Eye for 2 of the 3 PCN's posted earlier. I understood i had 14 days from the date the 1st pcn was deemed delivered which i thought was 2 days after the date the pcn was issued to pay the discounted rate. Therefore I thought that the 1st pcn issued on 31/3/25 (del 2/4/25) allowed me until 16th April to pay at the reduced rate, but when I went on the Parking Eye website today it says I owe the full charge of 90.00 for that pcn and then I noticed on the reminder they sent me (below) that it says on the back i have until 13th Apr to pay the reduced rate. This is wrong surely?

The reminder for the 2nd pcn which was issued on 1/4/25 (del 3/4/25) says on the back i have until 14th Apr to pay the reduced rate, but I think i have until 17th Apr. Am I right on both of these or have I got it wrong?

If i am right, what can I do about the full charge they now say is due? Presumably they will change the charge to the full amount for the 2nd pcn tomorrow too.

Any advice appreciated please.




Logged
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
« Reply #7 on: »
No. The 14 day discount is from the issue date of the NtK. What is relevant to the 28 days from "receipt" is the deadline to appeal before they can initiate debt recovery action.

Check the PPSCoP:

Quote
8.2.2. A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days of the issue of the Notice to Driver where a notice is issued at the time of the parking event, or of the issue of the Notice to Keeper and/or Notice to Hirer where the first notice is sent through the post
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. 3 x Parking Eye PCN's