I’m looking for informed views on a ParkingEye parking charge where the core issue is not mitigation, but unclear allegations, contradictory evidence, and procedural errors.
What happened
A vehicle of which I am the registered keeper was issued a ParkingEye PCN at a pay-and-display car park. I was not the driver on the day and I have never identified the driver.
From the outset, the problem has been that ParkingEye never clearly stated what the alleged breach actually was.
The PCN / NTK problem
The Notice to Keeper does not clearly specify a single breach. It refers to:
either failure to pay for parking, or
an overstay of the permitted period.
Both are presented, but neither is clearly identified as the allegation. The online portal initially described the issue as non-payment, while later correspondence leaned toward overstay. This ambiguity made it impossible to know what was actually being alleged.
Internal contradictions (SAR disclosure)
After submitting a Subject Access Request, ParkingEye disclosed internal records that directly contradict each other:
One internal “whitelist” / payment record shows:
payment was logged,
a two-hour stay was authorised,
with a valid period recorded.
A separate internal system record for the same event states:
“Paid duration: 0 minutes”
“Allowed duration: 0 hours”.
These records cannot both be correct. ParkingEye has never explained:
how these conflicting records arose, or
which one was relied upon to issue the charge.
No audit trail, reconciliation logs, or backend explanation were provided.
Driver identity and POPLA
I consistently stated that I was not the driver and did not provide driver details.
Despite this, POPLA treated narrative wording referring to payment as an admission that I was the driver, even though no name or address for service was ever provided. In my understanding, payment does not identify the driver, and keeper liability cannot arise without POFA compliance.
POPLA also refused to engage with the contradictory records, stating that rebuttal evidence amounted to “new grounds”, while simultaneously accepting ParkingEye’s inconsistent data at face value.
Where this now stands
The operator relies on unclear allegations (non-payment vs overstay).
Its own disclosed records contradict each other.
The driver was never identified.
POPLA assumed driver identity and did not resolve evidential conflicts.
This now appears to be heading toward court, and I’m trying to sanity-check:
whether an NTK that does not clearly specify the alleged breach can found liability;
whether contradictory internal records undermine reasonable cause and evidential reliability;
whether POPLA was entitled to infer driver identity from payment-related wording. and chose to ignore parking eyes own evidence where correspondence stated I was not the driver. which I can clearly prove but will not at this stage.
A further issue is the complete failure to properly apply grace and consideration periods, despite clear evidence.
I provided bank transaction evidence showing payment was made during the stay. ParkingEye’s Popla disclosure then included a “whitelist” record (compiled in a Word document) which matched my transaction time and showed a two-hour authorised parking period. Despite this, neither ParkingEye nor POPLA addressed the practical reality that time is required to return to the vehicle after the paid period ends. The assessment treated ANPR timestamps as absolute, without accounting for the mandatory exit grace period or the time between leaving the vehicle, paying, and returning.
In effect, evidence was acknowledged but not applied.
The whitelist record was not disputed, yet it was never reconciled with enforcement data showing “Paid Duration: 00:00”. This contradiction was simply ignored rather than tested, and the charge upheld regardless. That failure to reconcile the operator’s own records is at the heart of the dispute.
What’s been most frustrating is discovering that every official complaints route seems to stop short of addressing the actual problem.
I’ve raised this with POPLA, the BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards and the ICO. Each body looks only at its own narrow remit, and none will engage with the core issue: contradictory evidence and unclear allegations being relied upon to pursue keeper liability. POPLA won’t test conflicting data, the BPA won’t intervene in individual cases, the DVLA focuses only on whether data could be requested at the time, and Trading Standards treat complaints as intelligence rather than disputes. The result is an endless loop where everyone acknowledges the complaint but no one resolves the inconsistency that caused it in the first place.
This leaves court as the only forum where evidence is actually tested and contradictions must be explained.
That’s not because the charge is strong, but because the oversight framework doesn’t deal with factual disputes — it just processes them. I’m sharing this so others understand that exhausting complaints routes doesn’t necessarily mean the issue lacks merit; it often just means you’ve reached the limit of what those bodies are designed to do.
Any legally-grounded views welcome.
