Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear [***]

Thank you for your email.

Our role is to investigate breaches of our Code of Practice where evidence can be supplied and to rectify any identified breaches. On this occasion, a breach of the Code was identified, and we believe appropriate rectification occurred.

Please note we are not obliged to continue to correspond about issues we have already addressed.

If we receive further correspondence of this nature, we will deem it as unreasonable and/or vexatious and therefore we will invoke our unreasonable complaints and vexatious communications policy.  Please find below a link to the policy for your information:

UnreasonableComplaintsandVexatiousCommunicationsPolicyMarch2025.pdf

Kind regards

Gemma Dorans

AOS Investigations Team

Dear Mr Boynes,

It seems you have a problem with this employee. I will not stand for being told black is white.

Information regarding this whole matter is being circulated.

I await your conformation that you have advised your member to cancel this "parking charge notice".

Sincerely

[***]

Dear Mr Boynes  (Cc: Dave Smith),

The email that I sent to you at 1.01pm today was misaddressed and I meant to send it (and address it) to somebody else. My apologies for this error.

Nonetheless, you are past the 1pm deadline and I have not heard from you that you have cancelled your "parking charge notice" that you issued in February with my name on it, against which I filed an appeal to which you failed to issue a substantive response within the BPA-mandated 28 days.

Liability is not transferable to a registered keeper outside the English jurisdiction, nor in any case is the PCN still extant given that you failed to respond to the appeal. Whether you try to find the driver is up to you, but the PCN issued to me as registered keeper at the time is certainly void.

Because you missed the deadline, I am now circulating information including correspondence with yourselves.

I realise your reputation is extremely poor, but in the interests of protecting it from further free fall into the gutter, you may like to confirm that you have cancelled your "notice" even at this tardy stage. At the present point I have not started proceedings for harassment but reserve the right to do so.

Yours sincerely,

[***]

Dear Mr Boynes,

I'm still waiting for your confirmation that you've cancelled the invoice you sent me, which you pompously described as a "charge notice".

Whether you try to locate the driver of the vehicle is up to you. Keeper liability doesn't apply in Scotland (where you know I am based), and in any case you failed to issue a substantive response to my appeal within the BPA-mandated 28 days, only sending me an email (which didn't even refer to my grounds of appeal) after 121 days, shortly after the BPA contacted you because I required them to.

You certainly don't have a valid claim on me for anything - and it's in your interests to recognise this.

[***]

Dear POPLA Team,

Let me begin by noting that the operator has always identified itself to me as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something I urge you to investigate.

As far as the 51-page document that they have submitted to you entitled "OP Case Summary" is concerned, it contains in my estimation absolutely nothing whatsoever that is relevant

1) to the grounds stated in the appeal that I filed with them,

2) to the fact that they failed to answer the said appeal until four months later (three months after the BPA deadline) and have never responded to it substantively, or

3) to the grounds stated in my appeal to you, which are covered under points 1) and 2).

The points of the appeal I submitted to you continue to stand, and they have not been challenged substantively by Parking Eye Ltd. It is presumably not your role to make their case for them, and since they haven't made a substantive response to my appeal I trust you will acknowledge that they haven't made one and treat their baseless attempt to contest my appeal in the way it patently obviously deserves.

I consider the PCN to be void, and I look forward to hearing confirmation of your agreement to this effect. Whether or not I receive such confirmation, I shall continue to regard the PCN as void and I shall continue to regard this operator's demand that I pay them some money to be without good cause, unenforceable, and such that it will constitute a further case of harassment if they repeat it.

Yours sincerely,

[***]

"I am aware The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper due to the drivers details not being supplied. The appellant states the parking operators action is incorrect due to PoFA 2012 not being applicable in Scotland. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants statement and agree, it is important to point out that it is the area in which the PCN is issued, and not where a registered keeper lives. Therefore, as the PCN was issued for a car park in England, I am satisfied that PoFA 2012 would be applicable and the parking operator was correct when it transferred liability of the PCN to the Registered Keeper and this is compliant with PoFA."

POPLA assessment and decision

01/09/2025
Verification Code

[***]
Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Lyndsey Howgate

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining on the car park for longer than the permitted free stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below •The appellant advises they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, live in Scotland and there has been no identification of the driver. PoFA makes no provision for transfer of liability to a registered keeper in Scotland, and therefore liability may not be transferred to them. •The appellant advises they submitted an appeal to the parking operator on the 19 February 2025, and the parking operator broke BPA Code of Practice section 8.4.1 because it did not conclude a response to their appeal within 28 days, nor, having harassed them to provide information that I told them unequivocally in their appeal that they would not obtain. The appellant advises they only received a response from the parking operator 121 days after their initial appeal had been raised. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. •The appellant states that the parking operator has always identified itself to them as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something they urge to be investigated. •The appellant states the evidence provided by the parking operator is not relevant. •The appellant states that they consider the PCN to be void, and look forward to receiving confirmation of POPLA's agreement to this effect. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle and therefore I will refer to them as the appellant throughout my report. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant advises they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, live in Scotland and there has been no identification of the driver. PoFA makes no provision for transfer of liability to a registered keeper in Scotland, and therefore liability may not be transferred to them. I am aware The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper due to the drivers details not being supplied. The appellant states the parking operators action is incorrect due to PoFA 2012 not being applicable in Scotland. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants statement and agree, it is important to point out that it is the area in which the PCN is issued, and not where a registered keeper lives. Therefore, as the PCN was issued for a car park in England, I am satisfied that PoFA 2012 would be applicable and the parking operator was correct when it transferred liability of the PCN to the Registered Keeper and this is compliant with PoFA. The parking operator has provided a copy of the car park site map indicating where signage is located within the car park and time date stamped photographs of the signage within the car park which advises 2 hours free parking, parking tariffs apply after 2 hours free parking, tariffs available, payment methods available and failure to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. I am aware that the car park where the vehicle entered and exited is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. All accessible entry and exit points in this area have a ANPR camera in place which takes an infrared image of a vehicle registration, as the vehicle passes by. The system then identifies the vehicle registration mark (VRM) from these images, after which the total time the vehicle remained on site is calculated, recorded and compared with any parking time purchased/the advertised terms and conditions. The parking operator has supplied images obtained from the ANPR camera that shows the vehicle entering the car park on the 2 February 2025 at [***] and exited at [***] the same day (2 hours and [***] minutes). The appellant advises that they submitted an appeal to the parking operator on the 19 February 2025, and the parking operator broke BPA Code of Practice section 8.4.1 because it did not conclude a response to their appeal within 28 days, nor, having harassed them to provide information that I told them unequivocally in their appeal that they would not obtain. The appellant states that the parking operator has always identified itself to them as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something they urge to be investigated. This sectors Code of Practice which was jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, however POPLA's role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly due to any breach in the terms and conditions of use of a car park and is unable to comment on how a parking operator has handled an appeal. If the appellant wishes to explore this aspect of their appeal further, direct contact to the parking operator should be made or they may wish to raise this directly with the BPA. The appellant states the evidence provided by the parking operator is not relevant. The appellant states that they consider the PCN to be void, and look forward to receiving confirmation of POPLA's agreement to this effect. I have reviewed the photographs of the signage within the car park, where it is located within the car park and also the whitelist provided that the parking operator that confirms that no payment was received for the duration that the vehicle remained in situ on the car park on the day the PCN was issued (after the free 2 hour duration had expired). I am satisfied that this validates the terms and conditions of use of the car park where breached. As the appellants appeal has been refused, any further discussions regarding payment of the PCN should be made directly to the parking operator. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to remaining on the car park for longer than the permitted free stay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing to inform you that we are now in receipt of the decision from POPLA concerning your recent appeal.

This notification confirms that the appeal has been refused and the full Parking Charge amount is now due to the Operator.

From: [***]
To: philip.boynes@parkingeye.co.uk
Subject: order to desist

Dear Mr Boynes,

The legal position remains exactly the same as it was in February. You have no right to transfer liability to keeper in Scotland.

This is a formal order to desist from demanding money from me with menaces, and formal notice that in the event that you continue to do so you may face prosecution under the Protection  from Harassment Act 1997.

Yours sincerely,
[***]