Author Topic: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4 (Read 672 times)

carriep · « **on:** February 17, 2025, 11:15:57 pm »

A car was parked at the Charnock Richard motorway service station in northern England for 2.5 hours, in excess of what is apparently a 2 hour limit. The car's registered keeper lives in Scotland and he has received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye for £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days, unless he wasn't the driver and tells them the name and address of the driver. They say if he doesn't either pay the charge within 29 days or tell them the name and address of the driver, they have the right to recover the charge from him as the keeper. In this connection they cite para 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The said schedule only applies to England and Wales. The incident took place in England, so there is no denying that whoever drove the car was in England at the time and therefore subject to E&W law. But the keeper lives in Scotland. Just to be clear: his address as registered keeper, as recorded at the DVLA, which is the address at which he received the notice through his door, is where he lives in Scotland.

What should the keeper do?

Copies of both sides of the PCN are here: page 1, page 2.

carriep · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2025, 12:05:10 am »

Have they complied with POFA Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e)?

They are supposed to invite the keeper

Quote

"(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver".

But the closest they've come is to comply with 9(2)(f) (assuming the specification of 29 days is compliant) and say that if the charge hasn't been paid within 29 days of the date "given" and the keeper hasn't told them the driver's name and address, they have the right to come after the keeper.

Where have they invited the keeper to pay??

b789 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2025, 01:04:57 am »

The Keeper should stop worrying. There is no Keeper liability in Scotland, for now.

While PoFA allows private parking companies in England and Wales to hold the registered keeper liable if the driver is not identified, this provision does not extend to Scotland.

The registered keeper in Scotland is not subject to PoFA keeper liability, even if the alleged contravention occurred in England.

Any claim would need to be pursued in England, as that is where the alleged contravention took place. However, for a registered keeper based in Scotland, the operator would have difficulty enforcing keeper liability unless they could establish jurisdiction in Scotland.

A claim against the keeper in a Scottish court would fail because PoFA does not apply there. In Scotland, private parking companies must pursue the driver directly. If the keeper does not disclose who was driving, there is no legal mechanism under PoFA for the operator to transfer liability to the keeper.

So, since PoFA does not apply in Scotland, a parking company cannot rely on it to hold a Scottish keeper liable for a charge incurred in England. The parking company must identify the driver to enforce the charge. If the keeper does not name the driver, they are not liable.

In other words, don’t tell ‘em your name Pike!

Easy one to deal with… 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:

Quote

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 the registered keeper resides in Scotland, the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) do not apply, and you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge. 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.

Furthermore, you have breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) by issuing a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident. Your notice falsely states that the keeper is liable, despite this being legally impossible.

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.

Besides the appeal, there are several other things you should consider. Besides the fact that if ParkingEye reject the appeal, POPLA should uphold it because not only is the Keeper not liable, the PPSCoP has also been breached.

Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP states:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

ParkingEye obviously knows that PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident, yet they have still included a PoFA warning in their NtK. This is a clear breach of the Code Of Practice.

POPLA has the authority to uphold an appeal on the basis that the PCN was issued incorrectly due to a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Since ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely states that the keeper is liable under PoFA when they legally cannot be (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)), this is strong grounds for POPLA to rule in favour of the keeper and order ParkingEye to cancel the charge.

This all leads to another issue. Once ParkingEye obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA and saw that the address was in Scotland, they should have immediately realised that PoFA does not apply and acted accordingly. Their failure to do so is a breach of the PPSCoP and potentially a misuse of personal data under UK GDPR.

By breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), ParkingEye has also breached the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, and a formal complaint should be made to the DVLA.

The KADOE Contract Requires Operators to Adhere to the PPSCoP. Under the KADOE agreement, private parking operators must comply with the PPSCoP. ParkingEye has breached the PPSCoP by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning when PoFA does not apply to a Scottish keeper (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)). This means they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.

The DVLA provides keeper data on the condition that it is only used for a ‘reasonable cause’—such as enforcing unpaid parking charges in compliance with the applicable laws and Codes of Practice. Since PoFA cannot apply to a Scottish keeper, ParkingEye had no reasonable cause to issue an NtK implying keeper liability under PoFA. By knowingly issuing a non-compliant NtK, ParkingEye has used DVLA data improperly, which is a direct breach of their KADOE agreement.

If a parking company is found to have breached the KADOE agreement, the DVLA has the power to issue sanctions (such as warnings or suspensions), temporarily suspend their access to DVLA data and In serious cases, permanently revoke access, meaning they can no longer obtain keeper details for enforcement.

So, are you prepared to send a formal complaint to the DVLA? Happy to assist.

carriep · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2025, 07:33:49 pm »

Many thanks for this. I will have to think about it for a while. What is the argument for appealing rather than doing nothing at this stage?

"There will be no admission as to who was driving". I don't like the word "admission" here. I would say there will be "no identification of the driver" or "no statement regarding the driver's identity".

Quote from: b789 on February 18, 2025, 01:04:57 am

The Keeper should stop worrying. There is no Keeper liability in Scotland, for now.

While PoFA allows private parking companies in England and Wales to hold the registered keeper liable if the driver is not identified, this provision does not extend to Scotland.

The registered keeper in Scotland is not subject to PoFA keeper liability, even if the alleged contravention occurred in England.

Any claim would need to be pursued in England, as that is where the alleged contravention took place. However, for a registered keeper based in Scotland, the operator would have difficulty enforcing keeper liability unless they could establish jurisdiction in Scotland.

A claim against the keeper in a Scottish court would fail because PoFA does not apply there. In Scotland, private parking companies must pursue the driver directly. If the keeper does not disclose who was driving, there is no legal mechanism under PoFA for the operator to transfer liability to the keeper.

So, since PoFA does not apply in Scotland, a parking company cannot rely on it to hold a Scottish keeper liable for a charge incurred in England. The parking company must identify the driver to enforce the charge. If the keeper does not name the driver, they are not liable.

In other words, don’t tell ‘em your name Pike!

Easy one to deal with… 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:

Quote
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 the registered keeper resides in Scotland, the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) do not apply, and you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge. 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.

Furthermore, you have breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) by issuing a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident. Your notice falsely states that the keeper is liable, despite this being legally impossible.

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.

Besides the appeal, there are several other things you should consider. Besides the fact that if ParkingEye reject the appeal, POPLA should uphold it because not only is the Keeper not liable, the PPSCoP has also been breached.

Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP states:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

ParkingEye obviously knows that PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident, yet they have still included a PoFA warning in their NtK. This is a clear breach of the Code Of Practice.

POPLA has the authority to uphold an appeal on the basis that the PCN was issued incorrectly due to a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Since ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely states that the keeper is liable under PoFA when they legally cannot be (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)), this is strong grounds for POPLA to rule in favour of the keeper and order ParkingEye to cancel the charge.

This all leads to another issue. Once ParkingEye obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA and saw that the address was in Scotland, they should have immediately realised that PoFA does not apply and acted accordingly. Their failure to do so is a breach of the PPSCoP and potentially a misuse of personal data under UK GDPR.

By breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), ParkingEye has also breached the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, and a formal complaint should be made to the DVLA.

The KADOE Contract Requires Operators to Adhere to the PPSCoP. Under the KADOE agreement, private parking operators must comply with the PPSCoP. ParkingEye has breached the PPSCoP by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning when PoFA does not apply to a Scottish keeper (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)). This means they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.

The DVLA provides keeper data on the condition that it is only used for a ‘reasonable cause’—such as enforcing unpaid parking charges in compliance with the applicable laws and Codes of Practice. Since PoFA cannot apply to a Scottish keeper, ParkingEye had no reasonable cause to issue an NtK implying keeper liability under PoFA. By knowingly issuing a non-compliant NtK, ParkingEye has used DVLA data improperly, which is a direct breach of their KADOE agreement.

If a parking company is found to have breached the KADOE agreement, the DVLA has the power to issue sanctions (such as warnings or suspensions), temporarily suspend their access to DVLA data and In serious cases, permanently revoke access, meaning they can no longer obtain keeper details for enforcement.

So, are you prepared to send a formal complaint to the DVLA? Happy to assist.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2025, 07:41:39 pm »

Quote

What is the argument for appealing rather than doing nothing at this stage?

A potentially quicker end to the matter. By appealing now you show that you're not an easy target, and when they realise they've no hope they may well give up. If you ignore it they'll probably pass the matter on to debt collectors - whilst they're powerless, up to 6 years of threatening letters can be a pain.

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2025, 08:32:10 pm »

Quote from: carriep on February 18, 2025, 07:33:49 pm

"There will be no admission as to who was driving". I don't like the word "admission" here. I would say there will be "no identification of the driver" or "no statement regarding the driver's identity".

Fair enough. As long as you realise there is absolutely no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company, whether in England & Wales or even in Scotland where it isn't even statute law yet!

carriep · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2025, 12:50:16 pm »

I have now submitted an appeal as follows:

Quote

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I reside in Scotland. I deny any liability or contractual obligation to you or your client.

There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - in particular, paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 - does not apply here in Scotland.

You are in flagrant breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in that you have issued a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know that PoFA does not apply in Scotland.

There are several other legal problems with your Notice, which I shall not mention here because the above is fully sufficient to show that ParkingEye have absolutely no hope of success at POPLA - so kindly save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN without delay.

I am ticking the box saying "I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by Parkingeye", but the only reason I am ticking it is because you have configured your software not to accept appeals from appellants who do not tick it. I absolutely do not "confirm" as stated, and I reserve the right to submit whatever evidence I choose at a later time.

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2025, 02:16:28 pm »

Quote

"I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by Parkingeye"

This restriction is not legally binding even within ParkingEye’s internal appeals process. This restriction is an unfair contractual term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), particularly if it limits a consumer's ability to present their case fairly.

It also breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) by misleading appellants into thinking they are permanently bound by this restriction.

An appellant should ignore any suggestion that they cannot present further evidence at POPLA or in court, as their rights under consumer and civil law override such artificial limitations.

A formal complaint to ParkingEye and a separate complaint to the DVLA is advised.

Complain to ParkingEye and state that their tickbox requirement is unlawful and breaches the PPSCoP. Demand confirmation that they will accept additional evidence if needed. Make it clear that you will escalate the matter to the BPA.

Complain to the DVLA, highlighting that ParkingEye is breaching the PPSCoP by restricting evidence submission. Point out that their non-compliance means they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA. Request the DVLA to investigate and take action, including possible suspension of their access to vehicle keeper data.

carriep · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2025, 02:52:11 pm »

I have now received a Reminder. Here are its page 1 and page 2.

b789 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2025, 03:02:28 pm »

Reminders are irrelevant. Ignore those.

carriep · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2025, 07:49:53 pm »

I have now received another communication (by email) from Parking Eye. (See below.)

As you can see,

1. They have ignored what I said in my appeal about the non-applicability of PoFA in Scotland.

2. They have ignored what I said about their breach of the PPSCoP.

3. They have wrongly said that I stated that I was not the driver, whereas in fact what I actually stated was "There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver".

4. They have ignored my refusal to give up my right to provide further evidence later.

I don't know what they mean by their sixth paragraph. I am making representations solely in my own name, as the registered keeper who has received a bill from this company that it calls a "Parking Charge Notice". I am not saying anything about the driver, or identifying the driver, or saying that I am doing anything on behalf of the driver.

I have specifically stated that there will be no identification of the driver, so surely writing to me to demand that I identify the driver ("you should") is harassment.

Link.

b789 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2025, 10:58:15 pm »

A formal complaint forces ParkingEye to respond to the specific issues raised, creating a further paper trail of their failures. This also satisfies the BPA’s requirement to exhaust the operator’s complaints process before escalating to them.

Send them the following:

Quote

Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract

Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,

This is a formal complaint regarding ParkingEye’s serious breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and your obligations under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. These breaches involve misleading and unlawful conduct in the processing of my personal data.

This complaint is entirely separate from the appeal process and must be handled in accordance with your formal complaints procedure.

1. Unlawful Application of PoFA in Scotland

You have issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning, despite the fact that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland.

You have doubled down on this misrepresentation in your appeal response by falsely asserting that:

"You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper."

This is categorically false, misleading, and unlawful because PoFA cannot be used to hold keepers liable in Scotland. This constitutes a serious breach of consumer protection law and could be considered a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.

2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.1(d)

Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly prohibits operators from issuing Notices to Keeper in Scotland that contain PoFA warnings. Your conduct is in direct contravention of this rule.

Your failure to comply with the PPSCoP constitutes a breach of your BPA membership requirements and will be the subject of a formal complaint to the BPA if your response to this complaint does not fully uphold it.

3. Breach of Your KADOE Contract with the DVLA

By issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning, you have also breached your Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA.

Your KADOE contract strictly prohibits misleading statements or the processing of keeper data in a manner that is not fully compliant with the relevant Code of Practice. By issuing NtKs in Scotland that include PoFA warnings, you are processing my personal data unlawfully.

Regardless of your response to this complaint, I am reporting this serious breach to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team.

4. Misrepresentation of My Appeal & Harassment

In your response to my appeal, you falsely stated:

"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach."

This is not true. My actual words were:

"There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that PoFA does not apply here in Scotland."

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

5. Required Actions

To resolve this complaint, I require the following:

1. Immediate cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as it has been pursued using an unlawful and misleading PoFA warning.

2. A formal admission of your breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP and an explanation of how you will rectify this breach across all Notices issued in Scotland.

3. A formal admission of your breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA and confirmation that you will cease issuing non-compliant NtKs in Scotland.

4. A commitment that ParkingEye will never again attempt to mislead Scottish keepers by referencing PoFA in any correspondence.

If your response does not fully uphold this complaint, I will escalate it as a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) in line with their procedures, after exhausting ParkingEye’s own complaints process as required under the PPSCoP.

Regardless of your response, a separate complaint is being submitted to the DVLA regarding your breach of the KADOE contract.

I expect a full response within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

carriep · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2025, 12:39:43 am »

Hi,
Many thanks for this. It is a bit too late at night for me to consider all this, but I will go through it properly in the morning. In the meantime, what address should I send this to? They emailed me using <no-reply@parkingeye.net> as their From: address.

Quote from: b789 on March 05, 2025, 10:58:15 pm

A formal complaint forces ParkingEye to respond to the specific issues raised, creating a further paper trail of their failures. This also satisfies the BPA’s requirement to exhaust the operator’s complaints process before escalating to them.

Send them the following:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract

Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,

This is a formal complaint regarding ParkingEye’s serious breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and your obligations under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. These breaches involve misleading and unlawful conduct in the processing of my personal data.

This complaint is entirely separate from the appeal process and must be handled in accordance with your formal complaints procedure.

1. Unlawful Application of PoFA in Scotland

You have issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning, despite the fact that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland.

You have doubled down on this misrepresentation in your appeal response by falsely asserting that:

"You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper."

This is categorically false, misleading, and unlawful because PoFA cannot be used to hold keepers liable in Scotland. This constitutes a serious breach of consumer protection law and could be considered a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.

2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.1(d)

Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly prohibits operators from issuing Notices to Keeper in Scotland that contain PoFA warnings. Your conduct is in direct contravention of this rule.

Your failure to comply with the PPSCoP constitutes a breach of your BPA membership requirements and will be the subject of a formal complaint to the BPA if your response to this complaint does not fully uphold it.

3. Breach of Your KADOE Contract with the DVLA

By issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning, you have also breached your Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA.

Your KADOE contract strictly prohibits misleading statements or the processing of keeper data in a manner that is not fully compliant with the relevant Code of Practice. By issuing NtKs in Scotland that include PoFA warnings, you are processing my personal data unlawfully.

Regardless of your response to this complaint, I am reporting this serious breach to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team.

4. Misrepresentation of My Appeal & Harassment

In your response to my appeal, you falsely stated:

"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach."

This is not true. My actual words were:

"There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that PoFA does not apply here in Scotland."

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

5. Required Actions

To resolve this complaint, I require the following:

1. Immediate cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as it has been pursued using an unlawful and misleading PoFA warning.

2. A formal admission of your breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP and an explanation of how you will rectify this breach across all Notices issued in Scotland.

3. A formal admission of your breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA and confirmation that you will cease issuing non-compliant NtKs in Scotland.

4. A commitment that ParkingEye will never again attempt to mislead Scottish keepers by referencing PoFA in any correspondence.

If your response does not fully uphold this complaint, I will escalate it as a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) in line with their procedures, after exhausting ParkingEye’s own complaints process as required under the PPSCoP.

Regardless of your response, a separate complaint is being submitted to the DVLA regarding your breach of the KADOE contract.

I expect a full response within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

b789 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2025, 04:09:55 am »

You can either post it to:

Parkingeye Limited
Complaints Department
40 Eaton Avenue
Buckshaw Village
Chorley
PR7 7NA

Make sure you get a free proof of posting certificate from any post office.

Or, you can use their online complaints form here:

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/form/

carriep · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2025, 11:29:45 am »

Many thanks. I have now submitted a complaint through that page.

The only change I made was to change this:

Quote

"Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997."

to this:

Quote

"Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear statement that there will be no such identification. This unwarranted pressure may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997."

because they might have inferred that information to do with the driver was somehow my own personal data.

Also I added this:

Quote

"Last, I have clicked on your two buttons saying "I have read the complaints policy and understand that any appeals/dissatisfaction relating to a Parking Charge will not be dealt with via this process" and "I have read the Privacy Policy relating to "special category" personal data and I understand the types of information that would be considered sensitive. Should I choose to explicitly disclose information within my complaint that would be considered sensitive, either within the complaint detail or within documents I attach, then I consent to the Parkingeye Complaints Team processing this information as outlined in the Privacy Policy." The only reason I clicked was because you have configured your software not to accept complaints if a complainant does not click. Please note that I do not accept what is stated here. You are not a public body and I do not have any kind of contract with you or obligation to you, nor do I grant you any rights."

Quote from: b789 on March 06, 2025, 04:09:55 am

You can either post it to:

Parkingeye Limited
Complaints Department
40 Eaton Avenue
Buckshaw Village
Chorley
PR7 7NA

Make sure you get a free proof of posting certificate from any post office.

Or, you can use their online complaints form here:

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/form/

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4 (Read 672 times)

carriep

Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: PCN from Parking Eye - parking was in England, keeper lives in Scotland

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

DWMB2

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

b789

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4

carriep

Re: Parking Eye PCN - parking in England, keeper lives in Scotland - & possible non-compliance with POFA Sch 4