You made a serious mistake by appealing the parking charge in your own name and identifying yourself as the driver. The notice was sent to your husband as the registered keeper, and crucially, the parking company was not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to hold him liable. That means they had no legal route to pursue him unless he named the driver—which he didn’t.
As long as your husband stayed silent or simply stated he wasn’t the driver and didn’t wish to name the driver, the parking company would have been stuck. Without PoFA compliance and without knowing who was driving, they couldn’t legally enforce the charge against anyone.
But by voluntarily appealing and admitting you were the driver, you handed them exactly what they needed. You gave them a name and a liability target. Now they don’t need PoFA. They can pursue you directly, and they likely will—through debt collection letters and possibly a county court claim.
This could have been shut down cleanly if you hadn’t stepped in. Instead, you’ve exposed yourself to legal action and removed the keeper’s protection. That’s the reality now.
However, all is not lost, even though you blew up the guaranteed, golden ticket win had the Keeper simply appealed and refused to identify the driver.
Here is a plain explanation of where you stand and what you can do next.
What this notice is
PCS (Parking Collection Services) sent the letter, but the “creditor” named on it is Parking Enforcement and Security Services (PESS). PCS are acting as PESS’s back-office/agent. The sign on site is branded “Battersea Reach” with PESS details and shows “30 minutes maximum stay”. There is no “no return within X hours” term on the sign in your photo.
Why PoFA no longer helps you
The notice you received is not drafted to transfer liability to the registered keeper under PoFA. That would normally be a strong defence for the keeper. However, you appealed in your own name and identified yourself as the driver. That lets PESS pursue you directly as driver, so PoFA becomes irrelevant in your case.
The core merits of your case
a) Multiple short visits (“double-dip”): ANPR systems often pair the first entry with the last exit and miss a middle visit. The sign says a single stay is limited to 30 minutes. It does not say visits are cumulative across a day. If you made two or more brief visits, there will be “orphan” images that their system should have found.
b) Required ANPR checks: The PPSCoP requires operators who use ANPR to run manual quality control checks to detect orphan images and multiple visits. If they failed to do that, the data request to DVLA was unlawfully made off the back of unreliable ANPR evidence.
c) Consideration/grace time: camera “gate to gate” timestamps overstate the true “period of parking”, because time is needed to enter, read signs and leave.
d) Signage: ambiguity is read against the operator. “30 minutes maximum stay” with no “no return” term does not ban two separate short drop-offs.
Your options, simply:
A) Pay and finish it. Fast, no further hassle.
B) Fight it. Reasonable prospects if you can show multiple short visits and the lack of a “no return” term. Ignore debt-collector letters. Only engage with the operator/its solicitors, a Letter of Claim, or an actual county court claim.
What to do now if you wish to fight
a) Send a Subject Access Request to PESS (and copy PCS). Ask for full ANPR logs for your number plate for each date, all images, camera locations/IDs, and the internal check they performed for orphan images/multiple visits. Ask for copies of every letter/email, together with send logs/metadata, and site photographs of the signage current at the time. Tell them to place the account on hold for 30 days while they comply.
b) Send a short complaint to PESS saying you were abroad from 24 July to 28 August (attach proof), you never received the alleged 14 July rejection email, and the undated copy they later sent does not prove it was transmitted. Ask them either to cancel or to issue a fresh POPLA code as fair ADR.
c) Ask the landowner/site managing agent to cancel as a discretionary cancellation. Attach your Google Location Timeline for the one date you have, explain there were multiple short drop-offs/pick-ups, and state that the sign contains no “no return” term.
d) Gather evidence now for both dates: export Google Location History if available; keep any receipts, dashcam files, school/nursery timing records, or witnesses.
DVLA and complaints
If the ANPR was not quality-checked for orphan images, the “reasonable cause” to get keeper data is in doubt. You can raise a complaint to the DVLA and, if needed, to the ICO, on the basis that inaccurate ANPR processing led to your data being used to pursue a charge that appears to arise from a missed multiple-visit check. Keep this proportional: it supports your position but does not itself cancel the charge.
If a Letter of Claim or a court claim arrives
Do not ignore either. You would defend on the merits: two short visits are not a single overstay, the sign allows separate visits, the operator failed to carry out the required ANPR quality controls, the camera times are not the parking period, and any added “debt recovery” add-on is not recoverable. If it reached a hearing and you lost, there is no lasting CCJ if you pay within one calendar month.
If you can evidence two separate short visits (ideally on both dates) and the operator’s logs show more than one entry/exit, fighting is sensible. If you cannot assemble evidence for the second ticket and want zero hassle, paying may be the pragmatic option.
Of course, if it were me, I’d fight it all the way.
