Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome to FTLA.

To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

Dud you identify the driver in your appeal?
Sorry, you already said not.
Are you the registered keeper and is your V5C correct?
If so, and this is the first notice to keeper, then you can’t be liable for the actions of the driver.
However it’s unusual for Parking Eye to take so long to issue the first NtK.
If the reverse of their notice does not mention the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 then they know they haven’t complied with its requirements.

As you are the registered keeper, and this is PE's first correspondence, you would appeal to have a rare 'golden ticket'. You can appeal along the lines of the below:


If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

As you are the registered keeper, and this is PE's first correspondence, you would appeal to have a rare 'golden ticket'. You can appeal along the lines of the below:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

I believe the original poster has already appealed to Parking Eye, but presumably not on this basis, and received the inevitable rejection, so can now go to POPLA.

Cheers folks,
Appeal refusal-letter dated August 8th. Again unconvinced this arrived until at least a week later, perhaps the 15th.

The terms on the POPLA paperwork say I have '28 days' (rather than 33)?

So seeing this is clearly stacked against driver, 33 down to 28, 28 minus the time to mail the letter, I'm assuming the appeal POPLA date as expired.

To clarify the obvious element to my mind, they have admitted in writing they don't have enough evidence to confirm if T&C's were broken, and as they have missed the opportunity to identify the driver - so now they no clear evidence of any offense, by an unknown person.

As a third and final matter, they have acknowledged in writing that they've been made aware of both of these flaws and disregarded them.

From my limited experience of attending court for prosecutions in work, any one reasonable flaw in evidencing either the offense or the offender, gets royal flipped out of magistrates court, often with a flea in the ear of the prosecution and cost to boot.

Here there are three factors seemingly casting significant doubt over their whether this case should even be in court.

Assuming I've missed the POPLA deadline from what I've read - why are the measures for this case so far removed from what I've seen is the general bar in court - does this even stand a chance of being progressed let alone winning (I'm assuming in Magistrates court?).
Oh! and what action if any would follow if I av missed the date - nothing until court?
Tanks both for you views on this.

This is not a criminal matter and so the "magistrates court" is not applicable. This is a civil contractual issue and would be dealt with in the county court.

The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection. Don't try and overthink it. They allow 5 days for service plus 28 days. So, if your POPLA code is still valid, you should appeal.

This would never stand up in court as long as the driver is not identified. There is no legal mechanism for transferring liability for an alleged contractual breach by an unknown driver to the known Keeper if the creditor has not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. Clearly, they have not complied in this case and so, as the Keeper and not identifying the driver, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

A single point appeal to POPLA on the basis that you are the registered keeper. You have not identified the driver. The operator has not issued an NtK that complies with PoFA para 9(4)(b) because it cannot have been given within the relevant period if the issue date is 24 July and the date of the alleged contravention is 4th June.

Use this very simple POPLA appeal:

I am the Keeper. ParkingEye has not established Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4. The alleged contravention was on 4 June 2025. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 24 July 2025, outside the 14-day relevant period required by paragraph 9(4)–(6). The NtK also omits the paragraph 9(2)(f) keeper-liability warning, indicating the operator is not relying on PoFA. The driver has not been identified. With PoFA not met and no identified driver, the keeper cannot be liable and this appeal must be allowed.

Personally, I'd keep it even simpler as some POPLA assessors can be quite intellectually malnourished and I'd aim it for someone with a mental age of a toddler to be able to understand:

Mr Keeper reads the rule book. It says: send a keeper letter within 14 days and put in special keeper-warning words. The visit was 4 June 2025. The Notice to Keeper was issued 24 July 2025. That is too late. The letter also leaves out the special keeper-warning words. The driver has not been identified. When the rules are not followed and the driver isn’t named, the keeper doesn’t have to pay. Please cancel the charge.

Either one should to the trick. I suspect that ParkingEye will concede and it won't even be assessed.

I'd probably go for the first of the two 

Chicken!