-
I have been asked to assist my daughter who has received a PCN as RK for an alleged non payment of parking.
I will upload the PCN tomorrow, but what is clear from the picture she sent me is that the event date and the issue date are over a month apart - 34 days.
Will this be enough to appeal on its own and if so, is there a standard response for this?
Thanks in advance. -
-
As you suggest post up PCN for accurate advice so it can be examined in detail
-
-
Also check the address and the date on the V5C.
-
-
Good morning all,
Sorry, there was a loss of the original notice and had to wait for the reminder!
All addresses on V5 are correct, the notice was just outside of the 14 days as required.
PCN redacted and attached. -
-
You've posted the reminder.
How about the original?
(Oh, and the way you've redacted the address isn't ideal, i.e. I can see the postcode ends in JF) -
-
A PCN reminder is useless. WE would need to know the actual issue date of the ORIGINAL Notice to Keeper (NtK). However, it is as rare as hens teeth for ParkingEye to fail to issue an NtK for delivery within the relevant period.
So, working on the assumption that the original NtK was issued correctly, we would need to first establish why the driver received the PCN in the first place. Did the driver fail to pay for parking or overstay a period of parking that had been paid for?
In other words, is the allegation of the contravention correct? If it is, then what defence or mitigation are you suggesting?
There is usually a flaw in all ParkingEye NtKs but you'd have to be really persuasive to get POPLA to understand it. All PE NtKs fail PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as they fail to invite the Keeper to pay the charge. They only tell the Keeper to pass the notice to the driver and inform them of the details.
As you would have to explain this to POPLA, you first need to appeal and only once that has been rejected, would you receive a POPLA code. As the initial NtK was probably issued well over 28 days ago, they are not likely to accept an appeal at this stage, which means too late to get a POPLA code.
Next is likely to be useless debt recovery letters which can be safely ignored. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
What you need to know is that eventually, the Keeper will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). Depending on whether they have farmed it out to a bulk litigation company or are doing it through their own in-house legal team, will leave you with a couple of options.
If they farm it out, you won't be paying a penny if you follow the advice. If they keep it in house, you would only have a 50:50 chance of successfully defending it.
What do you want or intend to do? -
-
The issue date was the same on the original PCN, it was delivered early August, no other correspondence before then.
-
-
A postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) cannot have the same issue date as the date of the contravention.
-
-
I have found the original PCN, attached.
Event date 27/26/25
Issue date 31/07/25
-
-
If you are definitely the registered keeper then this is a rare example of a ParkingEye golden ticket and you can appeal as the keeper with the below:Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them. -
-
*UPDATE*
A new one to me, but my daughter has received an email asking for her to name the driver. Is this a normal tactic from Parkingeye?
wording of email as follows:
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxx
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 27 June
2025 at 15:23, at Frenchgate Shopping Centre – Shoppers, Doncaster car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we
await further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the
breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the
evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well
be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by
visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address
detailed below.
Yours faithfully, -
-
Totally normal, their standard fishing exercise, if you ignore you will get a POPLA code. Some people advocate responding to this letter but if you do, make sure you do not identify the driver. Personally, I’d just ignore, you already told them you wouldn’t identify the driver.
-
-
Thanks for the advice.
Will the fact that this was issued beyond the 14 days of "offence" be enough to win with POPLA? -
-
Ought to be, yes.
-
Agree x 1
Like x 1
View List