Free Traffic Legal Advice

I’ve got the second appeal rejection from parkingeye. I’m thinking of mentioning the other popla appeal I have already submitted but also, part of me likes the idea of letting POPLA assessors contradict each other.

Thoughts?

Ask them why they have two different versions of the same NtK for the alleged contravention on 30/04/2025?

One is issued on 05/05/2025 and is almost PoFA compliant and the other is issued on 28/06/2025 and clearly is not PoFA compliant but under the PoFA statement on the back says you have identified yourself or been identified as the driver.

Without a saatisfactory explanation, you can further report them to the DVLA and the BPA (for what that is worth).

This is what I’ve got so far. Obviously evidence will be attached to the actual appeal. I assume I’m appealing it on the PE website because there’s no other way to lol

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write regarding the above Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to a contravention on 30 April 2025.

In your letter dated 27 May 2025, you acknowledged that I had:

“…stated that [I was] not the driver of the vehicle… [and] have not indicated who was.”

You also confirmed that you do not know the driver’s name or address, which is necessary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if you wish to pursue the registered keeper.

However, in your subsequent letter dated 28 June 2025, you proceed to reject my appeal and imply the matter can be pursued against me, despite the fact that:
   •   I have never been identified as the driver
   •   You acknowledged this in writing
   •   The Notice to Keeper was issued 59 days after the date of the alleged contravention, far outside the limit required under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012

Your actions are therefore:
   •   Procedurally unfair
   •   In breach of the BPA Code of Practice
   •   Potentially misleading under consumer law, notably the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

⸻

Request

I now formally request:
   1.   Confirmation that keeper liability will not be pursued
   2.   Cancellation of this charge on the grounds that no contract was formed and PoFA does not apply
   3.   A written explanation for the conflicting letters and misrepresentation of driver identification

If this is not resolved promptly, I will be submitting formal complaints to:
   •   The British Parking Association (BPA), for breach of their Code
   •   The DVLA, for potential misuse of my personal data under your KADOE agreement

So, the first evidence pack from PE has come back. They clearly used a boilerplate example becuase they brought up beavis v parkingeye which I never challenged them on. They supplied contracts with the landowner, which I never challenged. They havent actually rebutted any of my points and used out of context photos of the signage. Below is their repsonse, followed by Mine

ParkingEye

Case History
28/04/2025
Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
30/04/2025
Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
02/05/2025
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
02/05/2025
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-212
07/05/2025
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
07/05/2025
Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
20/05/2025
Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA (w/FAQS POFA)
21/06/2025
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-212
23/06/2025
Letter Issued - **Unsuccessful POPLA - Pro-Active


Rules and Conditions
This site is a Patrons only free stay car park when a patron enters their registration into the terminal at reception as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.


Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source.  The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date.  Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team.  If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.


We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.


Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

This car park has been registered with the British Parking Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.

Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack.

Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences, and the authority is given.

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.

My Response

I wish to respond to ParkingEye’s evidence submission as follows:

ParkingEye has not addressed or rebutted my core argument that the entrance sign is not visible to drivers entering the site.

Their photo of the sign is misleading. It is a close-up image that does not show whether the sign is visible from a vehicle on approach.

I have submitted a dashcam still (28/04/2025) and a photo (30/06/2025) showing the sign cannot be seen by a driver entering the estate.

I have also submitted two additional photos (10/07/2025) of the same sign, taken from the actual approach. These confirm it faces sideways, not toward oncoming traffic.

The sign is not legible or visible at the point where ParkingEye claims a contract is formed.

No contract could have been formed, so no terms could have been breached.

The BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signs to be visible on entry. ParkingEye has not shown this is the case.

No driver has been identified, and I, as keeper, have not been held liable under PoFA as no contract was formed.

ParkingEye’s evidence is generic, lacks context, and does not answer the specific points I raised. I respectfully maintain that the charge is unenforceable and ask that my appeal be upheld.

Of course they have a standard evidence pack, it would be expensive to craft a unique response to each case. The duplicate letters seems odd unless they are reminder letters, if they have the same reference it's only one PCN, don't over think it, their systems will be automated so it's unlikely to be human error.

As for the email, you sent a query via their privacy form and received a reply confirming it will be dealt with by their privacy team, not really that odd.

Just keep it all as evidence.

Just point out to the assessor any points from your appeal that they have not rebutted and rebut any new points they may have raised in the "evidence'!