Free Traffic Legal Advice

What a pity you didn't come here first before appealing and blowing your best and guaranteed chance to get this cancelled at the first hurdle. I am assuming that you, the Hirer (lessee) of the vehicle identified the driver.

In all Hire/leased vehicle cases, the PPC will fail to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so be unable to hold the known Hirer (lessee) liable for the charge. As long as the Hirer does not identify the unknown driver and there is no legal obligation on the Hirer to do so, then the PPC has nowhere to run with this.

The unknown driver is always liable. The keeper (Hire/lease company) has no idea who the driver is. The PPC has no idea who the driver is. The driver is unknown... unless the Hirer babs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

The known keeper receives a Notice to Keeper. The known keeper transfers liability for the PCN from themselves to the known Hirer. The known Hirer then receive a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in their own name. The PPC fails to follow all the strict requirements of paragraph 14(2)(b) of PoFA and so cannot hold the known keeper liable for the sins of the unknown driver.

Did you reveal the unknown drivers identity and so make the driver known? The driver is always liable.

In future, never, ever, ever, reveal the identity of the driver if you don't want to be scammed by these predators.

By paying the £60, you admitted liability and can kiss that money goodbye. If you had not identified the driver, you would not have to pay a penny to PE. Once the NtH was received, a simple "go get stuffed" protocol appeal would put an end to the matter:


So, in this case, you have complicated matters. However, all is not lost. For now, you must ignore all final demands and any debt collector letters. You have to wait and see if PE will pursue this all the way to court. They don't always, especially if they farm it out to a third party, bottom-dwelling firm of roboclaim solicitors such as DCB Legal. If they do, you can guarantee that if you follow the advice and defend any claim robustly using a template defence, they will eventually discontinue.

No one has said that you must lie and declare that the driver is unknown. All you have to admit to is that you are the Hirer (true) and that you are not legally obliged to identify the driver (true).

Neither Octopus (the keeper) nor the PPC know the identity of the driver. Octopus will have simply transferred liability from them, the keeper to the you, the Hirer. Only you, the Hirer could identify the driver and, as you are under no legal obligation to do so, you shouldn't, inadvertently or otherwise.

The driver is always liable but if the driver is unknown, the PPC is required to fully comply with the strict requirements if they want to transfer the liability from the driver to to the Hirer. I have never yet seen any PPC fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer that liability. If they are unable to transfer the liability, they have nowhere to go with this. The burden of proof is on the operator to prove who the driver was. They are not allowed to assume nor infer that that the Hirer must also be the driver. There are persuasive appellate law cases to back that up.

NtK = Notice to Keeper
NtH = Notice to Hirer
PoFA = Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is the law that overturned centuries of common law where liability for a breach of contract could be transferred to someone who was not a party to that contract.

Not voluntarily providing information you are under no obligation to provide is not lying.

I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot.

We're not saying that - you know who was driving, but ParkingEye don't, and you were under no obligation to tell them, and you can decline to tell them without having to lie. As a daft example to illustrate the point: I know my credit card number, but I can refuse to tell you what it is without lying.

Out of interest, what did you receive from ParkingEye, did they describe it as a Notice to Hirer?

Anyway, back to the bones of the case - in anticipation of potential court action, it would be wise to ensure you have gathered any evidence you might need to rely on, such as photographs of the car park signage detailing the terms and conditions, and any screenshots of the defective website you mentioned.

***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.***

You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload any photos - there's a guide to doing this here: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

Other images:

Final Notice:


POPLA decision:



Signage:


Broken Machine:


PayByPhone screenhot:

So, OP identified themself to be the driver according to the POPLA assessor. No need to discuss PoFA as it is not in play. OP as known driver is liable.

Wasted golden ticket. OP now has to decide whether to fight this or cave in.

Thanks for all the help, do feel like an idiot getting tricked. But I got two questions, I know these Operators mostly act as savages trying earns money of innocents but doesn't this keeper/driver anomaly, leave room for system-abuse, as in should one NEVER pay parking charges if they have some free time to challenge any PCNs which may come up?

2nd more relevant question, based on the broken parking machine, confusing PayByPhone screenshot and signage and having paid £60 on one PCN, am I likely to win if this were perused further by ParkingEye? (I definitely expect they will send all possible automated letters at the very least)

2nd more relevant question, based on the broken parking machine, confusing PayByPhone screenshot and signage and having paid £60 on one PCN, am I likely to win if this were perused further by ParkingEye? (I definitely expect they will send all possible automated letters at the very least)

The fact you have paid a different PCN is of no relevance to this one. Two separate parking events = two separate contracts allegedly formed.

It's hard to advise on your chances really, courts aren't always predictable. I can't see any "slam dunk" defences - I think the main thing you would need to clarify is why no payment was made via the PayByPhone app. You mention that it was confusing, but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:

It was asking £15.20

It's hard to advise on your chances really, courts aren't always predictable. I can't see any "slam dunk" defences - I think the main thing you would need to clarify is why no payment was made via the PayByPhone app. You mention that it was confusing, but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:

Quote

It was asking £15.20

Hello, yes so getting to the nuts and bolts of this. Parking was free for 2hours and "overnight charges" apply it said if longer than 2. Sure.. but then the signage (shared earlier in the thread) also says "Upto 9 hours £15.00". So overnight charges apply but that same is less than 9 hours somehow, I suppose they would send PCN if someone paid and exceeded 9 hours. I found it very confusing that overnight is 9hours.

Then on PayByPhone App, it didn't mention this 9 hour limit at all, it allowed to select multiple days, say I selected "2 days" what would it mean if only 9 hours is allowed in one stretch. I just thought I better not use the App and pay on the machine but turns out that was "out of service" which POPLA agrees to also but doesn't seems to make a different to their decision.

Also, may I add, when I received the first PCN, I thought I should pay for the 2nd incident on a delayed basis, but there was no option to do the same, only option was to wait for 2nd PCN..