Free Traffic Legal Advice

If the NTK from Parking Eye doesn’t have a section on the reverse “Protection of freedoms act” or similar then they are not trying to use its provisions to transfer liability. They refer to this as “not issued under the Protections of Freedom Act” but that just nonsense, the act exists and can be used or not.

But by saying this, they’re saying that they’re not trying to use PoFA to transfer liability, that’s all. If the driver was named, there would be no need to.

It would help if, as requested, you’d post copies of appropriate documents sent and received. Otherwise, it just looks like they’re agreeing with you.

It's very hard to offer advice on an appeal when we've only had a summary of the case, and no sight of any actual submissions.

I'm half surprised that ParkingEye haven't thrown in the towel when they realised they had no case to hold the keeper liable under PoFA, so ideally I'd want to see copies of the NtK, the original appeal, the POPLA appeal and ParkingEye's evidence pack.

But, assuming the driver identity has not been disclosed, and ParkingEye have accepted there's no PoFA liability, the appeal should be solid.

Does this link work to some images of the docs?

The final 10 pages or so are screen shots of the Parking Eye evidence uploaded to POPLA. They are all I’ve been able to get hold of at this stage. 

The only reference to it not being issued under PoFA is on the final image.

Thanks to all who have responded so far and hope this helps.

https://imgur.com/a/fwVkcQq?s=fbm

This is the actual wording used in the appeal to POPLA

As the registered keeper, this is an appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions in McDonalds, KFC,Costa Stourbridge, on 20th February 2025.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.

Summary of appeal:

1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability
2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver
3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage
4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority


1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA – There is No Keeper Liability

ParkingEye claims that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, a close analysis of the notice demonstrates that it is not fully compliant with PoFA, and since compliance must be absolute for Keeper liability to apply, this means the operator has no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for the charge.

It either fully complies with ALL statutory requirements, or it does not—and in this case, it does not.

The two primary failures of PoFA compliance in this NtK are:

(i) Failure to Include a Mandatory Invitation for the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states that a Notice to Keeper must:

“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the creditor with a statement.”

However, this NtK does not include an explicit invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. Instead, it merely states that:

• If the Keeper was not the driver, they should provide the driver’s details.
• The Keeper should pass the notice to the driver.

This omission is crucial because PoFA does not allow for any inferred obligation on the Keeper to pay the charge. The law requires an explicit invitation to do so. ParkingEye’s NtK does not contain such an invitation, meaning it fails to FULLY comply with PoFA. Since the statutory test is absolute (full) compliance, this failure alone voids Keeper liability.

(ii) Contradictory and Misleading Payment Deadline – PoFA 9(2)(f) and 9(6)

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that an NtK must:

"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—"

This means the correct timeline for liability and payment under PoFA is:

• The NtK is issued on Day 0.
• It is deemed “given” (received) on Day 2 (two working days later, per PoFA 9(6)).
• The Keeper has 28 full days starting from Day 3 before any liability can arise.

However, the front of the NtK states in large, bold text:

"PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100.00 PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED."

This is factually incorrect and legally misleading because:

• The demand for payment begins from the issue date, rather than from the day after the date the notice is given.
• The correct timeline under PoFA starts from the day after the notice is given, meaning ParkingEye is demanding payment before it is legally due under PoFA.

This is not a minor mistake. It is a fundamental contradiction that invalidates Keeper liability because ParkingEye’s demand is unlawful and unenforceable under PoFA.

The bold, prominent wording on the front of the NtK is incorrect and in direct contradiction with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), which states:

"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected."

By stating "PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED," ParkingEye’s NtK:

• Misleads the recipient into believing that payment is due earlier than legally required.
• Breaches PPSCoP, invalidating the entire PCN.

Since compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP must be absolute, this flawed notice cannot be relied upon to transfer liability to the Keeper.


2. ParkingEye Cannot Assume the Keeper was the Driver

Even if ParkingEye had issued a fully PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) (which they have not), they have provided no evidence that the Keeper was the driver on the day in question.

The legal position is clear: keeper liability is entirely separate from driver liability. The PoFA only allows an operator to hold the Keeper liable if the NtK is FULLYcompliant with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4. Since ParkingEye has failed to fully comply with PoFA in multiple ways as shown in section 1 above, the only person who could be liable is the driver.

However, ParkingEye has provided no evidence as to who that driver was.

The Operator Cannot Simply Infer the Keeper was Driving

ParkingEye cannot simply infer or assume that the registered Keeper was the driver. Neither can the POPLA assessor. There is no legal presumption in PoFA or civil contract law that the Keeper and the driver are the same person. PoFA does not place any obligation on the Keeper to disclose the identity of the driver, nor does it allow the operator to transfer liability without either full compliance with PoFA or direct proof of driver identity.

The only way ParkingEye could prove that the Keeper was also the driver is if the Keeper voluntarily admitted to being the driver. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to do so, and in this case, has not done so.

In the persuasive appellate court ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], HHJ Gargan explicitly stated in his conclusion at paragraph 35.3:

"It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers [who] are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. Or there may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of both family cars and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their spouse regularly drives the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion."

This ruling destroys any argument that ParkingEye or POPLA can simply “infer or assume” on the balance of probability that the Keeper was also the driver. The judgment confirms that there are multiple realistic scenarios in which the Keeper was not the driver, and unless ParkingEye can provide actual evidence (such as a direct admission from the Keeper), no such inference can be drawn.

This ruling has already been relied upon in multiple parking-related cases at the County Court level. If ParkingEye were to escalate this matter to court, they would struggle to argue against this ruling, as it provides a clear, logical, and legally sound analysis of why simply being the Keeper does not equate to being the driver.

Since ParkingEye has failed to establish Keeper liability under PoFA, and the Keeper has not admitted to being the driver, they have no legal basis to pursue the Keeper for this charge.

The appeal must therefore be upheld.


3. No Valid Contract Formed – Inadequate and Unclear Signage

The signage at this car park is unclear, poorly presented, and fails to form a contract in line with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

• The charge amount is not prominently displayed, and key terms are buried in dense text.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms to be fair and transparent—this signage fails that test.

Since no valid contract can be formed, no charge is payable.


4. No Evidence of Valid and Current Landowner Authority

ParkingEye is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, up-to-date contract with the landowner that grants them the right to issue parking charges at this location.

The burden of proof is on the operator to establish that they have landowner authority, and it is a requirement under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 7.1.1, which states:

"The parking operator must have written authority from the landowner (or their appointed agent) that provides clear authorisation to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement (including issuing and enforcing parking charges) on the land in question."

Furthermore, PPSCoP Section 7.1.3 requires that:

"The written authority must include the duration of the contract and any conditions or restrictions placed on parking enforcement and operational activity, including any changes to the terms of parking applicable to drivers."

The key point here is that any changes to the terms and conditions for drivers must be reflected in the landowner contract.

If any changes have occurred, ParkingEye must prove that the landowner contract was amended to reflect these changes. A mere signed witness statement from ParkingEye does not satisfy this requirement. The operator must provide a contemporaneous, unredacted contract that
1. Covers the exact terms in place on the date of the alleged contravention.
2. Explicitly authorises ParkingEye to issue parking charges under the precise terms that appear on the signage.
3. Confirms that the landowner has agreed to any subsequent amendments to the parking conditions.

OP, tell your friend to step back, take a deep breath and think!

An alternative view:

Why such complexity about what is a very, very simple issue baffles me?

The driver is liable if anyone is.
The RK, who is the 'appellant', has not admitted to being the driver.

So, what is the RK appealing??

There is NO role for POPLA as regards PoFA, because it's not being relied upon, so what exactly is the RK asking of the assessor?


Therefore ALL that counts is WHAT in PE's submission is substantive evidence that the appellant was the driver? It can't or shouldn't be to cancel the parking charge because this is between the creditor and the driver ONLY and the RK asserts they weren't the driver, therefore it has nothing to do with them factually or legally.

Frankly, the more a RK goes on about matters which, because they weren't the driver would not be known to them contemporaneously, baffles me.

This has nothing to do with 'cancelling the charge' because this is not a relevant consideration for the RK because the creditor has elected to NOT exercise the right to hold the RK liable.

I am the RK. I am appealing as the RK. I made submissions to the creditor as such.

The creditor hasn't offered any evidence that they have a claim against the appellant therefore, in as much as it has any relevance, the assessor should direct the creditor to cease any enforcement against the appellant in person.

The parking charge relates to the driver, not the keeper.

Parking Charge Notice is neither a PoFA nor a Code of Practice-defined term. In any event, PoFA is not engaged.

Outside PoFA, the creditor may pursue the driver in any manner permitted/prescribed by their Code of Practice and the Administration of Justice Act.

'Liability for the driver' cannot be disputed IMO because the keeper wasn't there. The more the RK associates themselves with the circumstances at the time, the more they suggest their own involvement.

As regards the RK:

Distance yourself.

I am the RK.
I don't know whether the driver is liable to the creditor for a parking charge.

In any event, as the keeper I have no liability because, by their own admission, the creditor is not seeking to engage the provisions of the P...of Free...Act.neither have they presented evidence that I am the driver.

Point taken, it's a deduction not a fact.

Either way, it doesn't need War and Peace as in the OP's post.

IMO, it also shouldn't end with ....'Parking Charge Notice cancelled'.

As this has nothing to do with PoFA, then all that applies is the CoP - the Administration of Justice Act can wait until the Micky Mouse arrangements cease.

But the CoP doesn't define or even refer to a 'Parking Charge Notice'.

And so this farce will continue until the Government intervenes.

If I were you, I'd use b789's proposed reply verbatim. I don't think any protracted debate about whether or not a 'Parking Charge Notice' is defined alters much - your friend has received a notice regarding a parking charge. I personally don't see any issue with referring to it as a parking charge notice.