Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have a leased vehicle for which the lease company has received a parking charge from Parking Eye. The location - ASDA Bexleyheath - allows 3 hours free parking, but the driver has apparently overstayed by 17 minutes. Images attached.

The lease company have informed me that they have redirected Parking Eye to issue the PCN to me (as the hirer of the vehicle), but I have not yet received it.

I'd like to appeal the charge so looking for generic advice. Specific questions I have from searching these forums:

1. The NtK apparently does not meet PoFA requirements. But can this be used as a defence where the keeper is the lease company?

Your Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as it fails to include the mandatory invitation required by statute. Therefore, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

2. The location shown is "ASDA Bexleyheath". A quick google shows there are 2 locations that meet that description:

Asda Bexleyheath Superstore
Address: 140 Graham Rd, Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6 7BN

Asda Bexleyheath Crook Log Supermarket
Address: 13/15 Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ

Thank you.
Fezster.

You will win this at POPLA once your initial appeal to the Notice to Hirer (NtH) has been received and appealed. The initial appeal will never succeed and ParkingEye will draw it out by requesting the drivers details, which you must NEVER give them.

You cannot respond to the Notice to Keeper (NtK) because you are not the Registered Keeper. When you do receive the NtH in your name, simply follow this advice:

There is no legal obligation on the known Hirer (the recipient of the Notice to Hirer (NtH)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtH is not compliant with all the requirements of 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 Hirer.

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

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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.

When the appeal is eventually rejected, you will receive a POPLA code and you can appeal with the two main points of appeal which will be no Hirer liability because of failure to comply with PoFA paras 9(2)(a) and 14(2).

Sections 13 & 14 of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
Hire Vehicles
is what I’d be using

14(1)If—

(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.
(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(3)In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.

They won’t include the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2), they never do.

Were any other documents sent alongside this NtH? If not, the appeal b789 suggested can now be submitted.

Response from ParkingEye to my appeal.

Interesting they refer to me as the "registered keeper", despite sending me a NtH.



I saw a similar response here: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/milton-country-park-pcn/msg75542/#msg75542. So have edited slightly and plan on going back with this - does this look ok?

Dear ParkingEye,

Re: Parking Charge Notice XXXXXX/YYYYYY
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Date of Event: DD MMM YYYY

I write in response to your latest letter, which is both inaccurate and legally incoherent.

You now cite Paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which apply solely to Notices to Keeper, not Notices to Hirer. This basic error alone would be embarrassing enough, were it not compounded by your persistent failure to grasp that:

• You did not invoke Schedule 4 in your NtH;
• You did not include copies of the documents required under Paragraph 13(2), such as the hire agreement and statement of liability;

To recap: you have issued a legally defective notice, made a baseless threat of keeper/hirer liability, misquoted legislation, and are now doubling down on your mistake with a recycled, irrelevant template letter that demonstrates either ignorance of the law or wilful misrepresentation.

You now have two options:

1. Cancel this charge immediately, recognising that pursuing it any further is futile; or
2. Issue a POPLA code, where I will refer the assessor to your PoFA failings and you can enjoy wasting the POPLA fee.

I refer you, in spirit and with appropriate legal sarcasm, to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Should you fail to cancel or issue a code, this matter will be escalated to the DVLA, the ICO, and the BPA with a formal complaint regarding misuse of data and breach of the KADOE contract.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
Hirer of the vehicle

Personally, I'd send that response. It is to the point and tells them, very politely to Arkell v Pressdram! 

Yes. Your points are that the driver has not been identified. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) did not comply with all the requirements of PoFA, most notably the operator failed to comply with paragraph 14(2)(a) of PoFA and failed to include copies of the  documents mandated in paragraph 13(2).

Because of that, there can be no Keeper liability.

That should be the end of the matter but you can do a search for other POPLA appeals on the forum and see how that have been structured.

You actually have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.

Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.

The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be a GPEoL...