3. PCN - Appeal help
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: PCN - Appeal help  (Read 1243 times)

0 Members and 37 Guests are viewing this topic.

PCN - Appeal help
« on: »
Received a PCN at the beginning of the month. As I was not the driver at the time, I appealed, stating that I did not know who the driver was and that I am unwilling to name them. They have since sent the attached reply. Any advice on how to proceed from here would be appreciated.

https://imgbox.com/lOD0cCGc
https://imgbox.com/dwjlTHnb
https://imgbox.com/qoX3NHZM
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #1 on: »
It looks like they fishing for the drivers ID.

Was this an out of store hours visit?

Can you post up photos of any signage.?
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #2 on: »
So the PCN is not PoFA compliant and omits the mandatory wording required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), namely; an invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

We can come up with a further email replay to PE if you want?
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #3 on: »
Yeah, it would be great if you could help with a reply. I was just going to ignore their response, but would it be better to send a reply?
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #4 on: »
Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 27th January 2026.

I have duly noted its contents.


In previous correspondence I have already stated that I am the vehicle keeper and that I would not be nominating a driver as there is no legal requirement to do this - that firmly remains the case.


In your latest letter you appear to claim the ability to move liability from the unknown driver onto the keeper through the use of PoFA - I accept that this can be done but only when the relevant requirements of PoFA are satisfied by the parking operator.

Ironically, you actually specify this yourself in your own boilerplate response where you state that application of PoFA only occurs 'subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.'


In this instance, your PCN issued via a postal Notice to Keeper does not 'comply with the applicable conditions' set out under schedule 4 of the Act.


In particular, the requirements of paragraph 9(2)(e) are not met - para. 9(2)(e) requires specific mandatory wording immediately followed by a two limbed invitation to the vehicle keeper - the wording of the two limbs is again regarded as mandatory wording and the two limbs should be linked together with the conjunction 'or' which then sets out a legal choice for the keeper to make.

In the Parking Eye issued PCN the mandatory 'invitation to the keeper' element is missing - para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) set out the requirements of each limb - you will see that your PCN contains no such invitation to the keeper 'to pay the unpaid parking charges' - the first limb is not stated on the PCN (neither is the required word 'or') and, as a result, the legal choice is never presented to the keeper in line with the requirements of schedule 4 - this is fatal to PE's reliance on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

In order to be compliant with para 9(2)(e) the following wording must be present in a single paragraph or sentence;


Parking Eye (the Creditor) does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

The keeper is now invited to pay the unpaid parking charges OR 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.


I accept that some elements of para 9(2)(e) are present in your PCN (in a mixed up manner) but, unfortunately, para. 9(2)(e)(i) is clearly not present and as a result the mandatory legal choice is never presented.


The wording of schedule 4 is clear; total compliance is needed with para. 9(2) in order for the PCN to be regarded as meeting the legal requirements of the schedule.



I am the vehicle keeper and I maintain that I am not liable and that PoFA cannot be used, in this particular instance, to transfer liability to me.




Many thanks,


xxxxx xxxxxxxx
« Last Edit: January 29, 2026, 09:24:32 am by InterCity125 »
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #5 on: »
When it gets to POPLA I'd lump in failure to specify the relevant land too - "Home Bargains, County Road" is rather vague; no town, no postcode...
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #6 on: »
Agreed.

But at this stage Parking Eye appears to be happy to discuss these issues on what seems like a 'pre-appeal basis'.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I suspect that they will 'disengage' at this point and simply say that 'our PCN is complaint' or perhaps something along the (totally subjective) lines of 'broadly compliant' in an effort to imply that total compliance is not actually required.



Odd that PE and Euro Car Parks are now both sending out clearly non-PoFA compliant PCNs with such muddled wording and clear errors - I wonder if this all comes back to one person or one organisation who is advising these firms.

Collectively this could amount to 10s of thousands of non compliant PCNs.
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #7 on: »
Most people pay up. A small % appeal. A smaller % appeal on 'technical' grounds like PoFA compliance. An even smaller % roll the dice at court. I'm not currently aware of any cases that have gone to a court hearing relying solely on the "9(2)(e)" point. If they did, I imagine 'judge bingo' would come into play. I imagine if PE found themselves losing a couple of cases on this point they'd probably change the wording.
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #8 on: »
I can’t thank you enough for all the help and advice, especially with writing that amazing reply. I’ve already sent it to them and will update here once I hear back.
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #9 on: »


so for anyone still following they just sent this latest reply which seams to completely ignore everything from the latest appeal letter I sent in.
Looking at the popla site now and how to move forward but I would appreciate any advice you can give.

https://imgbox.com/x6ScMPg9
Logged
Re: PCN - Appeal help
« Reply #10 on: »
Yes, this is the classic 'disengagement' which we mentioned previously in the thread.

Basically, you provided them with clear evidence which showed that the NtK was not PoFA compliant - your evidence was compelling in that respect.

In simple terms, they could not comment on that without acknowledging that the prescribed wording wasn't present.

Acknowledging the absent mandatory wording would have significant legal ramifications for the operator, not just in your case but in the cases of 1,000s and 1,000s of other cases - becoming aware of the absent wording would mean that they would not be able to pursue other unpaid PCNs under the claim of keeper liability based on PoFA. If they continued to make representations which indicated that keeper liability existed (when they knew full well that it didn't) then they would probably be committing fraud by misrepresentation.

As you say, onto POPLA - an appeal along the lines of your previous appeal to the operator. Use the previous wording which sets out the exact requirements of Schedule 4.



You could also send a further letter to Parking Eye asking them;

Why they haven't provided a response which addresses your appeal point?

Ask Parking Eye to confirm that they are no longer pursuing other keepers using PoFA now that they are fully aware that PoFA could never be applied to any of their defective PCNs?

Ask Parking Eye to confirm that they are notifying keepers (of unpaid notices) that they can no longer rely on PoFA in their case?

Ask Parking Eye what they are doing with keepers who have already paid the charges based on the defective notices - keepers may well have paid under the assumption that Parking Eye's claim of keeper liability was true?


Have a bit of fun at their expense!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2026, 03:31:34 pm by InterCity125 »
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. PCN - Appeal help