Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I'm

wondering whether there are any grounds for appealing this PCN. The driver visited Lee Valley Fishers Green (a country park). The driver drove o ut of the car park and then realised they needed to pay. The driver logged on to the app and tried to pay. It obviously didn't go through. You are unable to pay in retrospect. I will attach photos of the PCN and (very clear) signage. I do feel you should be able to pay in retrospect but I'm unsure whether there are any grounds for appeal.

Under no circumstances are you, the Keeper of the vehicle, to disclose the identity of the driver. You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. ParkingEye have no idea who the driver is and because of what I explain below, they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer liability and hold the known Keeper liable instead of the unknown driver.

Lee Valley Fishers Green sits within the Lee Valley Regional Park and the Park is governed by byelaws made under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966. Those byelaws apply across the Park estate and include provisions regulating vehicles (e.g. overnight parking) and provide for penalties on summary conviction—i.e. statutory control.

Under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, keeper liability only arises on “relevant land”. Land is not “relevant land” if the parking there is “subject to statutory control” (PoFA Sch 4, para 3). Because Lee Valley car parks are under byelaws, they fall outside PoFA’s “relevant land” definition; ParkingEye therefore cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper at this site.

Lee Valley’s own parking page lists Fishers Green as a ParkingEye-managed car park (location ref 800969), confirming the location and operator. The statutory control remains the key point: it disapplies PoFA keeper liability regardless of who manages the car park.

So, easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK cannot rely on PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Re: PCN [reference]; VRM [xxx]; Site: Lee Valley Fishers Green (location ref 800969); Date: 06/09/2025.

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. This car park is within the Lee Valley Regional Park and subject to the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority byelaws made under the 1966 Act.

Land under statutory control is not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (paragraph 3). Therefore, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Your NtK’s references to PoFA paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) are inapplicable.

There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

You should also send the following formal complaint tot he DVLA because ParkingEye have misused your personal data. I suggest you send the following as an email to kadoeservice.support@dvla.gov.uk and also CC yourself:

Subject: Misuse of DVLA keeper data by ParkingEye — PoFA keeper-liability asserted on non-relevant land (request for DVLA sanctions review)

Dear Data Sharing Strategy & Compliance Team,

I am raising a formal KADOE compliance complaint about ParkingEye Ltd (Company No. 05134454).

PCN ref: [insert]
VRM: [insert]
Date of event: 06 September 2025
Site: Lee Valley Fishers Green, Waltham Abbey

Summary
ParkingEye obtained my keeper data from DVLA and then served a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that asserts keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) at a site that is not “relevant land”. Lee Valley Fishers Green lies within the Lee Valley Regional Park and is subject to byelaws (statutory control). PoFA keeper liability cannot arise at such land, yet the NtK reproduces the usual PoFA 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) warnings and threatens recovery from the keeper after 29 days.

This constitutes a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) v1.1, clause 8.1.1(d): operators “must not ... state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable”. That Code is expressly binding on Approved Operators and is referenced in the KADOE framework.

Why this is a DVLA KADOE matter (not a “reasonable cause” dispute)
I am not challenging DVLA’s initial disclosure on “reasonable cause” grounds. The issue is subsequent misuse of my data: the operator used DVLA-obtained data to send a non-compliant, misleading NtK that asserts PoFA keeper liability where none is possible. That misuse breaches:

• KADOE clause A6.1 (requirement to comply with the ATA Code of Practice); and
• DVLA’s own compliance/sanctions regime for misuse of data obtained via KADOE.

Requested DVLA action
Please treat this as a KADOE compliance issue and:

1. Open a sanctions case against ParkingEye for misuse of DVLA data and non-compliance with the PPSCoP at this site.
2. Apply sanction points and/or other measures under DVLA’s sanctions policy as appropriate, and require an operator corrective action plan (CAP).
3. Record the operator’s assurance on template and process changes (i.e. removal of PoFA keeper-liability wording for sites under statutory control) as a condition of continued KADOE access.
4. Confirm the outcome and any sanctions applied.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a request for DVLA to mediate a parking dispute, nor a request that you refer me to the BPA/IPC. It is a complaint about misuse of DVLA data in breach of KADOE obligations and the Sector Code, and therefore squarely within DVLA’s compliance remit.

Evidence attached

1. NtK (front and back) showing PoFA 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) keeper-liability wording.
2. Evidence that Lee Valley Fishers Green is within the Lee Valley Regional Park and subject to byelaws (statutory control). Lee Valley Byelaws
3. Extract of PPSCoP v1.1 §8.1.1(d). PPSCoP v1.1

Please acknowledge receipt and advise the sanction(s) and corrective actions you will require from ParkingEye.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

[Postal address]
[Email/phone]
Registered keeper of [VRM]

Losing the ability to pay £60 if you do not owe them anything isn't a great loss.

You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver. They have no idea who that is and they are not allowed to infer or assume that the Keeper is the driver.

Without the identity of the driver, they cannot do anything. As the Keeper, you cannot be liable for the charge if they don't know the drivers identity because the land is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA as it is under statutory control.

You can either respond and refer them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971) or just ignore and wait to see if they cancel the PCN or reject the appeal and issue a POPLA code for a secondary appeal where this is most likely going to be won.

If you do respond, you only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

For example, if you decide to, you could respond with:

I decline to provide driver details and rely on the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971); do not contact me further about driver identification.