Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

Dear ParkingEye,

Thank you for your latest template request for the driver’s details. You appear to be under the impression that I am obliged to act as your unpaid investigator. I am not.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives you a statutory route to pursue the registered keeper only if you have complied with every requirement of Schedule 4. It does not entitle you to demand private information to remedy your own procedural or evidential deficiencies.
Since your Notice to Keeper fails on more than one PoFA point. no liability of any kind can be transferred to the keeper. Your PCN is therefore defective, and this charge is denied in full.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be naming the driver. You have all the information you are entitled to under statute. Should you wish to continue wasting time and resources pursuing an unidentifiable site and an unproven debt, that is a matter for your internal compliance department to explain to POPLA and any court that later questions your competence.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

POPLA Verification Code: [enter]
Operator: ParkingEye
PCN: [enter]
Vehicle Reg: [enter]
Appellant: Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I will not be doing so. No inference can be drawn.

Ground 1 – PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a): the Notice to Keeper fails to identify the relevant land

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) states only “St Michaels Court” with no town, street or postcode. “St Michaels Court” is not uniquely identifiable and could refer to multiple distinct sites nationwide. By way of illustration, here are thirty different “St Michaels Court” locations:

1. Worcester, WR1 2AR – Mixed use building
2. Leeds, LS10 1DG – Court off Dock Street
3. Cheltenham – YMCA supported housing
4. Penzance, TR18 4AF – Chapel Street business address
5. Nottingham, NG1 6EA – Student apartments near Maid Marian Way
6. Lichfield, WS13 6EF – Former hospital site on Trent Valley Road
7. Cambridge, CB2 3NJ – Gonville & Caius College accommodation
8. Cosham (Portsmouth), PO6 4AR – Paulsgrove residential block
9. Gloucester, GL1 1JB – Mixed commercial buildings near Brunswick Road
10. Durham, DH1 3RJ – Residential development
11. Weybridge, KT13 9BP – Princes Road residential development
12. Leicester, LE1 5XZ – Residential block near New Walk
13. Truro, TR1 2SL – Court off Kenwyn Street
14. Reading, RG1 7ER – Office court
15. York, YO1 7LH – Flats off Micklegate
16. Liverpool, L1 6DE – St Michael’s Court off Dale Street
17. Amersham, HP6 6AA – Retail court car park off Sycamore Road
18. Bournemouth, BH2 5DX – Residential block near West Hill
19. Northampton, NN1 3DW – Residential complex off Wellingborough Road
20. South Shields, NE33 3AL – Housing estate near Laygate
21. Exeter, EX4 3AF – Residential flats near High Street
22. Bath, BA1 1QF – St Michael’s Court off Walcot Street
23. London (Poplar), E14 6PS – Residential complex on St Leonards Road
24. Hereford, HR1 2HX – Flats near Commercial Street
25. Sunderland, SR2 8JU – Gray Road residential flats
26. Newport (South Wales), NP20 2BY – Church Street residential block
27. Manchester, M4 5EG – Residential block near Ancoats
28. Aylsham (Norfolk), NR11 6YA – St Michaels Avenue residential area
29. Birmingham, B3 1UF – Office development near Colmore Row
30. Carlisle, CA1 2QN – Flats off London Road

There are more but I think that the POPLA assessor gets the drift. In the absence of a unique identifier such as a town, street and/or postcode, the NtK does not “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.

Ground 2 – PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): no invitation to the keeper to pay

The NtK does not contain the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge. Partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient; the statutory wording is prescriptive. Absent full compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), keeper liability cannot arise.

Ground 3 – No keeper liability; no obligation to name the driver

ParkingEye has chosen to pursue an alleged contractual breach by the driver. There is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver and no inference can be drawn from the keeper’s silence. Given the failures under paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i), the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper in any event.

Ground 4 – ParkingEye is put to strict proof of standing at whatever location they are actually referring to

Even if POPLA were to disregard the PoFA defects (which it should not), ParkingEye must still demonstrate that it has the necessary legal standing to operate and issue PCNs in its own name at the actual site in question.

At present, the operator has not properly identified the land, merely referring to “St Michaels Court” which, as shown above, is hopelessly generic. It follows that:

1. ParkingEye is put to strict proof that a binding, contemporaneous, unredacted contract exists between the landowner of the specific site actually concerned and ParkingEye.
2. That contract must:
   (a) Clearly identify the exact land to which it applies (including the correct full site name and address);
   (b) Grant ParkingEye authority to operate, erect signage, issue parking charges, and crucially, to pursue those charges and legal action in its own name rather than as agent; and
   (c) Be in force for the material period.
3. A generic “witness statement” or self-serving letter is not sufficient. Only a full, signed, unredacted copy of the landowner agreement, showing the defined site and the scope of ParkingEye’s authority, will suffice.

Given that “St Michaels Court” is not uniquely specified in the NtK, any contract now produced must match the actual physical location of the alleged contravention. If ParkingEye cannot show a contract tied to a clearly identified piece of land that corresponds with this PCN, they have no standing and no cause of action, even against a driver, let alone a keeper.

Conclusion

Because the NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable. In addition, ParkingEye has not proved its standing to operate or issue PCNs in its own name at whatever unidentified location “St Michaels Court” is supposed to be. I require POPLA to allow this appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.