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

Our normal first bit of advice is to contact the landowner and ask them to intervene, although from your account it's not immediately clear what 'appointment' the driver could have had at a Farmfoods store...

I was struggling to upload a pic on here - hopefully the url below works!
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1772449892769-873ce397-90ec-4c4a-83b7-7450b9f8e68e.jpeg

I had an appointment at a neighbouring unit, the PCN states Farmfoods so I assume it’s owned by them, but there are 3-4 different shops on the car park.
I can go back there and take a picture of the signage if necessary!

And the back of the PCN please?

On what grounds do you suspect the PCN has been incorrectly issued? From what you've told us so far you simply overstayed the free stay period breaching the car park rules, hence the PCN.

Use the appeal above and it'll quickly move to step 3 in DWMB2's post above. If you're happy to play the waiting game hoping they will discontinue before court then that's fine. If you want to make it go away at first or second appeal stage you'll need something a lot stronger than telling Parking Eye they don't know how to word a PCN.

On what grounds do you suspect the PCN has been incorrectly issued?

There is no invitation to the RK to pay the invoice.

Use the appeal above and it'll quickly move to step 3 in DWMB2's post above. If you're happy to play the waiting game hoping they will discontinue before court then that's fine. If you want to make it go away at first or second appeal stage you'll need something a lot stronger than telling Parking Eye they don't know how to word a PCN.

But the issue is that ParkingEye don't - their invoice fails to include the mandatory invitation to keeper to pay the charge required by POFA Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e).

POFA isn’t optional. If any of the statutory elements are missing, the NTK is non‑compliant and keeper liability cannot be created. In this case, the NTK simply does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the charge or to name the driver.

That is a complete POFA failure, not a stylistic one. ParkingEye are therefore limited to pursuing the driver only, and as they do not know who that is, the keeper cannot be held liable.

Whether they discontinue before court is up to them, but the legal position is straightforward: no POFA compliance = no keeper liability.

Unfortunately it's far from that straightforward and trying to suggest it is wont help people get their PCNs cancelled. All it does is give people the belief they have a slam dunk reason an appeal would be granted when the reality is the opposite.

Everyone who comes here seeking advice essentially has two options available to them; just pay the invoice or embark on a challenge, the first stage of which is an appeal.

Any appeal has to have grounds.  I'm happy to be corrected but the strongest ground in my opinion is the fact that the document they have received is defective insofar as it cannot transfer liability from keeper to the unknown driver due to the omission of mandatory wording.

If it ends up before a District Judge it's quite a compelling argument if you ask the parking company's legal representative to highlight exactly where clause xyz is on their documentation.....I suspect that's why so many of these cases get canned at the point of paying the court fee.

I have tried to caveat advice elsewhere on this forum with "you should expect any appeal to fail" so if I have given any impression otherwise I apologise.....I personally think the whole appeals process (primary and secondary) to be a charade but it's one of the hoops to jump through to reach the end goal.