Free Traffic Legal Advice

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) No. [PCN no.]
Vehicle Registration No: [VRM]
Issue Date: [issue date]

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I would like to emphasise that I was not the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. I am under no legal obligation to provide the driver’s details, and I decline to do so.

ParkingEye (PE) has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which are necessary to hold the keeper liable. I outline the following points of non-compliance:

1. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(2):


PoFA paragraph 2(2) states that 'adequate notice' of the parking charge must be given to drivers. In this case, no adequate notice was provided. There were no visible signs at the entrance, at the location where the vehicle was parked, or along the route to the entrance of the premises, communicating the parking terms and conditions.

2. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(3):


Paragraph 2(3) further clarifies that 'adequate notice' means signs must clearly specify the parking charge and be positioned in such a way that the charge is brought to the attention of drivers. In this case, PE did not display sufficient signage to meet this requirement.

3. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c):


PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c) requires that the Notice to Keeper describe how the parking charge arose and how the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver. Given that PE has failed to provide adequate notice as defined in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3), the Notice to Keeper does not comply with this requirement. PE’s partial or substantial compliance with PoFA is insufficient to establish keeper liability, as full compliance with all PoFA requirements is mandatory.

4. Failure to comply with POFA paragraph 9)2)(e)(i):
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

• An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

• Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

In addition, should PE reject my appeal, I will expect you to provide the following evidence to POPLA:

• A detailed layout of the car park showing the location of all signage.

• Proof of the exact location where the vehicle was parked, and how this relates to any signage.

• Evidence that the signage used to display the parking terms and conditions is fully compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) and Independent Parking Committee  (IPC) Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

PE will be put to strict proof of the vehicle’s parking location and the relationship of that location to any signs passed between the parking space and the premises entrance.

In light of these clear breaches of PoFA and the inadequate signage, I request that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Subject: Response to PCN No. [Insert PCN Number]

Dear ParkingEye,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated [insert date] in response to my appeal regarding PCN No. [PCN Number]. I write to reiterate my position as the registered keeper of the vehicle and to address your request for further information.

As I have already stated, I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking contravention. I am under no legal obligation to provide the driver's identity, and I decline to do so.

Your response references paragraph 9(2)(b) and paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, I must stress that for you to rely on these provisions to claim keeper liability, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) must fully comply with all other requirements of PoFA, which I outlined in my appeal.

Specifically:

1. Failure to Include an Invitation to Pay (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)):

Your NtK fails to include a clear and unambiguous invitation for the keeper to pay the parking charge, as required under PoFA. This is a critical omission that renders the NtK non-compliant.

2. Inadequate Signage (Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)):

As noted in my initial appeal, your signage does not meet the standards required under PoFA, BPA, or IPC codes of practice. Without sufficient signage to communicate terms to the driver, your claim against the registered keeper is invalid.

3. Failure to Explain How the Parking Charge Was Brought to the Driver’s Attention (Paragraph 9(2)(c)):

Your NtK does not provide sufficient detail about how the terms and conditions of parking were made clear to the driver, particularly given the issues with signage.

4. Strict PoFA Compliance is Mandatory:

PoFA requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements. Partial compliance is insufficient to establish liability on the part of the registered keeper.

Given the above points, I maintain that ParkingEye has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for payment of this Parking Charge Notice.

I also remind you of your obligation to either accept my appeal or provide me with a POPLA verification code to escalate this matter to independent adjudication. Your letter has not addressed the substantive points I raised regarding your failure to comply with PoFA, and I expect a substantive response within the 28-day hold period you referenced.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN or issue a POPLA code, I will escalate this matter further, including complaints to the British Parking Association (BPA) and other relevant authorities.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper