Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice 708543/683695 – Keeper liability denied

Dear ParkingEye,

I write as the registered keeper regarding PCN 708543/683695 (Ilford Retail Park; alleged event 01/05/2025 at 17:11).

Your Notice to Keeper was issued well outside the relevant period and does not purport to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the absence of PoFA reliance, there is no lawful route to keeper liability.

Your request that the keeper identifies the driver is therefore misconceived. There is no legal obligation to provide driver details and no adverse inference can be drawn from a refusal. No admissions are made as to the identity of the driver and I decline your request.

You may now either cancel the charge or issue a POPLA verification code forthwith. If you prefer to pay POPLA to defend an appeal you cannot lawfully win, be my guest; the appeal will succeed on the simple point that you have chosen not to rely on PoFA and thus cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Should you assert otherwise, please identify the precise legal basis on which you contend keeper liability arises without PoFA and the wording in your NtK that you say engages it.

Pending resolution, do not pass my data to any third party other than POPLA for the sole purpose of the appeal.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name of keeper]

Before considering any alleged breach or contravention, POPLA must first determine whether the keeper can be held liable. Since the operator has expressly disclaimed reliance on PoFA and the driver has not been identified, the answer is clearly no. Accordingly, the appeal must be upheld and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

The operator has confirmed in their own evidence that this Parking Charge Notice was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, there is no lawful basis for holding the registered keeper liable. I have not identified the driver, and there is no legal requirement to do so. As a result, liability cannot transfer to the keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.

Furthermore, the operator’s evidence includes false claims about the contents of my appeal, referring to arguments regarding pre-estimation of loss and the Beavis case that I never raised. This demonstrates either negligence or deliberate misrepresentation. POPLA must disregard those statements as irrelevant and untrue.

Additionally, I did not put the operator to strict proof of landowner authority, yet in their infinite wisdom (or obvious lack of it) they have included these redacted documents as part of their own evidence. In doing so, they have shot themselves squarely in the foot.

The so-called “Supply Agreement” shows an “Effective Date” hidden by redaction, signed on 2 April 2019, and defining an “Initial period” of 24 months (the handwritten alteration of “36” to “24” makes that crystal clear). There is no legible clause or written evidence showing any extension or renewal. On its face, the agreement expired by April 2021.

Since the alleged event took place on 1 May 2025—over four years later—this paperwork proves that ParkingEye had no continuing authority to operate or issue PCNs at this site. They have therefore provided the very evidence that confirms their lack of standing.

POPLA cannot simply assume continuation of a lapsed contract, particularly when key dates are redacted and the signatory’s status is unknown. Without valid and contemporaneous landowner authority, ParkingEye had no legal capacity to issue or enforce this Parking Charge.

Their own evidence completely undermines their position, and the appeal must be allowed.