-
Hi
Looking for some support with a PCN received today carpark that is now owned by Lidl in Merry Hill Dudley. We did visit Lidl and have no receipt it a was a small cash purchase at the time.
The car park is a decent size, poor signs on time limits and ownership, we thought it belong to Dudley Council / Merry Hill Shopping Centre.
Looking to see if there are grounds to appeal, have atached the PCN below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HAmL3ZfjTuPykhl3rZ76e2yOW6l-MAHX/view?usp=sharing -
-
Plan A - Lidl CEO ryan.mcdonnell@lidl.co.uk
Of course, if you spent 5 minutes in LIDL and then went elsewhere it’d be more difficult to argue. -
-
We did bit of shopping in Lidl and then went for some food at Weatherspoons, obvioulsy had we known of the time fames we would have returned sooner or parked else where.
Is this not worth appealing ?, I was thinking for sending the below:
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.
PoFA 2012 para 9(2)(e)(i) requires that an NtK must invite the Keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. Your NtK does not.
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. -
-
Give it a go. They won't agree but you can use the following argument about the PoFA failure of para 9(2)(e)(i) at POPLA with the following:Quote
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law. -
-
Thanks,
Will give the below a try first with Parkingeye, when rejected... What are the chances of the proceeding to POPLA. Would Parkey Eye continue fishing and increase the PCN or allow the reduced amount.
Appreciate the support provided on here.
Will give the below a try, please let me know of any changes or send as below.
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.
PoFA 2012 para 9(2)(e)(i) requires that an NtK must invite the Keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. Your NtK does not.
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. -
-
If they reject your initial appeal, they are obliged to provide a POPLA code for the secondary, supposedly "independent" appeal. Even if POPLA is not successful, their decision is not binding on you. You don't pay.
If they eventually escalate to a county court claim, that is where you get the truly independent consideration. The odds of it actually going all the way to a hearing are slim to none, and even if it did, you have a high prospects of being successful. -
-
Hi
Appreciate any suppport as my appeal to Parkingeye has been rejected.
They have sent the attached letter with some information sheets on POPLA grounds for appeal.
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 26 October 2025
at 15:34, at Lidl Merry Hi l car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. The
signage displayed on site confirms that there is a maximum stay time in operation. Our
records confirm that on the date of the event, the maximum stay time alowed was
exceeded.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an
independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an
appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information
and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman
services.org/)provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent
to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative
dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA, as explained above.
Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the
driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).
As a gesture of goodwil, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from
the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you wil not be able to pay the
discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the ful value of the charge
wi l be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you wil no
longer be able to pay the discounted amount and the ful value of the charge wil be due.
A payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting
www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to
Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference
number on the reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be alocated.
Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ
If you have received this correspondence via email, please alow 24 hours for our
systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated
payment line or website.
Yours faithfuly,
Parkingeye Team -
-
I've already given you the main POPLA appeal point. Do a search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals and see all the points raised in them. Put something together and show us before you submit it so that we can advise on any edits, corrections or additions.
You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal, so no mad rush. -
-
Hello, would the below be enough for my appeal to POPLA, I've taken bits from couple of posts.
Thanks in advance, appreciate your support.
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
1 No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used
The operator’s own evidence states in their 'Additional information' in their evidence pack: “PLEASE BE ADVISED, THIS PARKING CHARGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.” That statement ends the matter. If PoFA is not used, only the driver could be liable. As the appellant is the registered keeper and has not been identified as the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal.
. No standing / defective landowner authority
The operator provides only a heavily redacted “Order Form” rather than a full contemporaneous, site-specific agreement compliant with PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j). The redacted document omits:
- the landowner’s full identity and signature;
- the unredacted boundaries of the controlled land;
- clear terms defining the operator’s authority to issue and enforce PCNs.
The PPSCoP makes these items mandatory. Without a complete and dated agreement evidencing the landowner’s consent, ParkingEye has no legal standing to issue or pursue this charge.
2. Beavis is distinguishable
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned a retail park where a charge served a commercial interest in space turnover. Here, the site is a residential housing association estate and the driver was conducting a necessary delivery. There is no comparable commercial or deterrent interest, and the charge serves no legitimate purpose beyond punishment.
3. Summary
- No period of parking evidenced – only entry/exit timestamps.
- Jopson v Homeguard confirms unloading is not parking.
- Signage is prohibitive and fails Consumer Rights Act standards.
- Operator admits PoFA not invoked – keeper not liable.
- Landowner authority not proven in accordance with PPSCoP.
- Beavis distinguished – no legitimate interest in penalising deliveries.
- PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions breached.
For all these reasons, the appeal should be upheld and the Parking Charge cancelled.
-
-
The operator provides only a heavily redacted “Order Form”
What "Order Form" are you referring to here, can you show us?Here, the site is a residential housing association estate
Is it? I thought it was a Lidl supermarket.the driver was conducting a necessary delivery
In your opening post, you said the driver was making a purchase, not a delivery?The operator’s own evidence states in their 'Additional information' in their evidence pack: “PLEASE BE ADVISED, THIS PARKING CHARGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.”
What "evidence pack"?
Taking inspiration from other POPLA appeals is good, but you need to make sure you're checking their content is relevant to your case, and not just blindly copying and pasting. -
-
Appreciate tthe update, yes it was at Lidl andnot making deliveries, have amended my POPLA appeal appreciate if this id good to go.
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
1 No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used
The operator’s own evidence states in their 'Additional information' in their evidence pack: “PLEASE BE ADVISED, THIS PARKING CHARGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.” That statement ends the matter. If PoFA is not used, only the driver could be liable. As the appellant is the registered keeper and has not been identified as the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal.
Before issuing any parking charges, the operator must hold written confirmation from the landowner that includes:
1. Identity of the landowner
2. A boundary map of the managed land
3. Any applicable byelaws
4. Permission granted and its duration
5. Parking terms and conditions (e.g. free periods, tariffs, exemptions)
6. Method of issuing charges (e.g. windscreen or post)
7. Responsibility for obtaining consents (e.g. planning, signage)
8. Documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on request
9. Approach to handling appeals
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and
unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the
"relevant land" to the operator. The “relevant land” is not adequately defined
because there are two possible Lidl store locations in Merry Hill, Dudley. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I
suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the
landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
All of the above must be evidenced in full and unredacted if the operator relies on landowner authority. A simple letter of authority does not satisfy the requirements of section 14.
As there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, the PCN is invalid and this appeal must be upheld.
No standing / defective landowner authority
The PPSCoP makes these items mandatory. Without a complete and dated agreement evidencing the landowner’s consent, ParkingEye has no legal standing to issue or pursue this charge.
Summary
- The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance.
- No period of parking evidenced – only entry/exit timestamps.
- Signage is prohibitive and fails Consumer Rights Act standards.
- Operator admits PoFA not invoked – keeper not liable.
- Landowner authority not proven in accordance with PPSCoP.
- PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions breached.
- No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
For all these reasons, the appeal should be upheld and the Parking Charge cancelled.
-
-
The PCN specifically mentions the use of PoFA - Parking operators are not allowed to use such wording in their PCN's if PoFA is not applicable. This is clear breach of the operators code of conduct. Ask the operator to explain why they have issued a NtK which claims to use PoFA to hold the keeper liable.
-
-
Thanks appreciate the support on here,
If I addon the last part to my appeal above, is this good to go for the POPLA appeal.
-
-
Your latest draft still refers to an "evidence pack" where you claim the operator has admitted they are not seeking to rely on PoFA, which doesn't seem applicable here.
-
-
Hi, appreciate all the support and guidance. See below update from POPLA following my appeal.
The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA's involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA's involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team -
Dumb x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List
Winner x 1
View List