Free Traffic Legal Advice

You have only shown us the PCN reminder. We would need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).

Plan A is top always try and get the landowner or managing agent to get the PCN cancelled. Have you contacted ASDA yet to complain about receiving a speculative invoice from a third party, unregulated private parking company merely for being a loyal patron of their business? When you approach them, aim as high up the management food chain as you can see go. The CEO is a good place to start and make sure all comms are in writing, preferably by email.

Regarding technical failures with the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which you can appeal on if you don't get a positive result from  Plan A will include failure to fully comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and also PoFA paragraph 3. Additionally, the "entrance sign" is parallel to the road rather than facing the driver when entering the car park which is a failure of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 3.1.2 and Annex 2 section A.2.2.

Regarding the entrance sign, there is no possibility of the sign being read by the driver (at least in the GSV images from August 2023) without needing to look away from the road ahead:



As for the PoFA failures, there is no "invitation" for the Keeper to pay the charge as required in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and the location of the alleged breach of terms is not clearly defined as "relevant land". Simply stating that the location is "Asda Eastlands" would be impossible to locate if using an OS map.

So, for now, keep trying Plan A. If you have no luck with that by Sunday 5th January 2025, then submit the following appeal but only as the Keeper. Easy enough to defeat 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 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 keeper.

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

I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper 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 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.

If you compare the back of the original and the reminder, you will see the difference. It is as expected but we needed to confirm. For now, makes no difference to the suggested appeal.

We don’t need to see any reminders or debt collector letters.

Finally received the rejection of the initial appeal: attached below.

Would appreciate any further guidance of how to proceed/respond.

That is NOT an appeal rejection. Please read it carefully.

Here is a suitable response:

Quote

Subject: Your Failure to Address the Non-Compliance of Your Notice to Keeper

Dear ParkingEye,

I refer to your recent response, which entirely misses the point of my original appeal. It seems your appeal team has either failed to read or failed to understand my grounds for disputing this charge. I will now spell it out for you as clearly as possible.

I specifically stated that your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your response rambles on about Paragraph 9(2)(f), but the non-compliance I referenced relates to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

For clarity:

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

You cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or

• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

ParkingEye cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

With the above in mind, I respectfully request you uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN or provide me with a POPLA code so that I can raise the matter further.

Thanks again- good point about the correspondence not actually being an appeal rejection. I have submitted the above and will update when I get a response!