DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: ixxy
Date: June 12, 2026, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
>
> PoFA does not remove the requirement that the operator must
prove that the contravention occurred in the first instance -
and that is the bit which they would struggle to prove.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's true and they'd almost certainly drop it before it got to
a hearing but I doubt they would roll over at first appeal and I
doubt POPLA would find in the keepers favour either, the
argument is probably too nuanced for most POPLA assessors. So
the usual advice stands, appeal, appeal again to POPLA, ignore
all the debt collectors letters and then engage with the legal
process or if that sounds like too much hassle, pay to make it
go away.
Or plan A but in this case from what the OP says that might not
be an option and I'm guessing it's not a Lidl car park as it's
on a retail park so it'll be the manageing agent that will need
contacting.
#Post#: 121623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I guess that the OP could write to the Parking Operator and ask
the following question;
I am the vehicle keeper and I have received your PCN.
This car is a family vehicle.
Your PCN asks me to nominate a driver - in this instance should
I provide the details of the driver who entered the car park on
the first occasion or should I provide the details of the driver
on the second occasion?
#Post#: 121642--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DRG1972
Date: June 12, 2026, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Please post up the PCN covering only personal info.
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4f0cxr01odijzwvyyvfh7/Scan2026-06-12_183239.pdf?rlkey=9j3dcj8cwayvwq0oucepu9jg4&st=kjygnxov&dl=0
Here is a link to pdf containing both sides of the letter
received
#Post#: 121643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DRG1972
Date: June 12, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DrSatan link ---
>
> Was it the same driver on both occasions? Parking companies
like to pretend that a vehicle can form a contract (it can't),
so if it was a different driver you have a slam dunk defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
It was the same driver both times. Its hard to tell from the
tiny images suppled but if PE have higher resolution images they
can see its the same driver
An item was purchased at a shot in Ilford, which discovered was
faulty when got home, and rather than wait till next day went
back to get it resolved with the shop that day
#Post#: 121646--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DRG1972
Date: June 12, 2026, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I guess that the OP could write to the Parking Operator and
ask the following question;
>
>
> I am the vehicle keeper and I have received your PCN.
>
> This car is a family vehicle.
>
> Your PCN asks me to nominate a driver - in this instance
should I provide the details of the driver who entered the car
park on the first occasion or should I provide the details of
the driver on the second occasion?
>
--- End Quote ---
A lot of people use the car park at the retail park as its the
only place where you can park for free for 2 hours and go into
Ilford, and this is an instance where did not shop at either the
Lidl or the Farm foods at the retail park.
Unfortunately it was the same driver. An item was purchased at a
shop in Ilford, was found to be defective when got home, and
went back to Ilford to get it resolved instead of waiting until
the next day.
We are well aware of the 2hrs free at this retail park, but were
not aware of the no return with 1 hr condition.
I thought about saying it was two different drivers but if they
have better resolution pics of the vehicle entering you can see
its the same person, so dont want to risk using that defence.
#Post#: 121659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 12, 2026, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is important that you do not lie, so you must not state that
it was two different drivers if it was not.
However, there is no obligation for you to state that it was the
same driver, nor to tell them who the driver was.
#Post#: 121671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 13, 2026, 1:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK is not compliant with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b)
- as a result keeper liability cannot occur.
#Post#: 121673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DRG1972
Date: June 13, 2026, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The NtK is not compliant with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(b) - as a result keeper liability cannot occur.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi InterCity125
I had a look at the legislation,
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
and this
is the wording
--- Quote ---
>
> inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking
charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that
the parking charges have not been paid in full;
>
--- End Quote ---
As they mention this under the protection of freedoms act in the
letter, I do not understand how what they say is not compliant?
#Post#: 121679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 13, 2026, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies the following;
The notice MUST inform the keeper that the driver is required to
pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of
parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The legislation therefore sets out two specific requirements
relating to the information which must be conveyed under
9(2)(b).
Namely;
1. That the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect
of the specified period of parking.
And
2. That the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The notice from Parking Eye fails to convey the second part of
the statutory requirement specified in 9(2)(b).
The legislation itself specifies that the NtK must meet "all
applicable conditions under this Schedule" - this means that
partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient - total
compliance is required.
#Post#: 121693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye - no return within 1 Hour
DIR By: DRG1972
Date: June 13, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me
This is my appear
Is there anything you recommend changing
Your Ref XXXXXX
Whilst the DVLA may have informed you that I am the registered
keeper of the motor vehicle in question, at this stage I make no
admission of who was the driver of the car during visit 1 or
visit 2.
Your parking charge has failed to comply with PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(b)
This specifies the following;
The notice MUST inform the keeper that the driver is required to
pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of
parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The legislation therefore sets out two specific requirements
relating to the information which must be conveyed under
9(2)(b).
Namely;
1. That the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect
of the specified period of parking.
And
2. That the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The notice from Parking Eye fails to convey the second part of
the statutory requirement specified in 9(2)(b).
The legislation itself specifies that the Notice to Keeper must
meet "all applicable conditions under this Schedule", this means
that partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient -
total compliance is required.
Based on your failure to comply with the statutory requirements
of the law, you must now cancel the Parking Charge Notice
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page