DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57947--------------------------------------------------
Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: zwi
Date: February 13, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
My dad recently received a penalty fine from Parking Eye for
parking in Aldi. However, he was not the driver – my mum was
driving the car at the time.
It was a new vehicle, and my mum didn’t know the number plate by
heart. To make sure she got it right, she took a photo of the
plate on her phone. Unfortunately, the picture was slightly
unclear, and a part of the top of the plate was cut off. As a
result, when she entered the registration number in the machine,
she accidentally typed the letter “I” instead of “T”.
We are wondering what the best approach would be to appeal this
fine. Should we explain the situation to Parking Eye, showing
them the photo to demonstrate the honest mistake? Or would it be
better for my dad to simply state that he was not the driver? If
he says he wasn’t the driver, does he need to provide my mum's
details?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 13, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s neither a “penalty” nor a “fine”!
One option would be to appeal on the basis of a “minor keying
error” and pay £20 for their costs as a result.
If you don’t think you should pay anything, wait for others to
comment. If the driver is not named then the registered keeper
can be held liable provided that Parking Eye has complied with
the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and I can’t
immediately spot that they have not, but others are more expert
then I am.
#Post#: 58013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: b789
Date: February 13, 2025, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)
and it also negates PoFA 9(2)(f) with the bold wording on the
front which is also a breach of the PPSCoP. Because of that,
even though they will dispute it, the Keeper cannot be liable
and as long as the Keeper does not blab the drivers identity,
they will not have any way to identify the driver.
Do you want to dispute it?
#Post#: 58024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: zwi
Date: February 13, 2025, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
>
> One option would be to appeal on the basis of a “minor keying
error” and pay £20 for their costs as a result.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I was wondering, how do you know that they charge £20 for a
minor keying error? Has this happened to you personally?
Also, how can I prove that it was a minor keying error?
Thanks so much!
#Post#: 58028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: zwi
Date: February 13, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA
9(2)(e)(i) and it also negates PoFA 9(2)(f) with the bold
wording on the front which is also a breach of the PPSCoP.
Because of that, even though they will dispute it, the Keeper
cannot be liable and as long as the Keeper does not blab the
drivers identity, they will not have any way to identify the
driver.
>
> Do you want to dispute it?
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
It sounds amazing that the NtK does not comply with PoFA. I am
not familiar with the PoFA rules. If I want to dispute the fine,
do I just need to state that I don’t know who the driver was, or
do I need to mention all the specific PoFA non-compliance
points?
Also, what are the chances of losing the dispute?
Thanks so much!
#Post#: 58034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 13, 2025, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: zwi link ---
>
> Also, what are the chances of losing the dispute?
>
--- End Quote ---
Trying to predict a person's chances of success is a risky
business. We can present you with the options, and how to pursue
them, but ultimately it's your money and time at stake, not
ours, so it's your call based on the information you've received
and your attitude to risk.
ParkingEye will reject almost any appeal, simply because they
can. The next stage after that is POPLA, where one has a better
chance - they do make some odd decisions at times, particularly
with PoFA fails that are less 'obvious' (an example of what I'm
terming an 'obvious' failure would be delivering the notice too
late, for example). If you lose there, the result is not binding
on you, and you could wait to see if they decided to take court
action (small claims) and seek to defend the matter there.
--- Quote from: zwi link ---
>
> how do you know that they charge £20 for a minor keying error?
--- End Quote ---
jfollows is referring to the Private Parking Sector Single Code
of Practice
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1_140824.pdf.<br
/>6.3 and Annex F cover keying errors. In terms of 'proving it',
they should have an ANPR log - if you know what character was
erroneously input, then they should be able to compare that
incorrect VRM against their log. Interestingly, on this point,
the CoP says:
[indent]"Where the terms and conditions require the driver to
supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by
telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a
documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a
parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors. This
should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying
errors.[/indent]
I don't see why their terminal couldn't be synced to the ANPR
system and bring up an warning if a driver tries to enter a VRM
that has not been picked up by the ANPR system.
#Post#: 58047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: b789
Date: February 13, 2025, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If an incorrect or partial VRM was entered, then their ANPR
images would show that no vehicle with the incorrect or partial
VRM was observed.
As for PoFA compliance, you can read it for yourself. However we
have done all that for you and know what we are advising. You
vacant either accept that advice and challenge the PCN or not.
When O say the NtK is not PoFA compliant, it isn’t. Whilst
ParkingEye will not agree or, more likely, ignore the fact,
there are several stages in the process where their error can be
challenged.
Whilst ParkingEye wil rejected the initial appeal, there will be
an opportunity to challenge the validity of the PCN with a
supposedly “independent” appeal service, POPLA. If that is not
successful, then decision is not binding on you and you can
challenge any alleged debt in the small claims track of the
county court, where you have the best chance at an impartial
decision, assuming it ever got that far, which is unlikely in
most cases.
Please stop referring to it as a “fine” or a “penalty”. I will
personally give you £100 for every occurrence of those words in
any documents you have received. It is simply a speculative
invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Just
because they have invoiced you, does not mean that you owe them
any money.
No one is asking the Keeper to lie about who was driving, even
if the Keeper was the driver. The Keeper and the driver are
separate legal entities and there is no legal obligation on the
Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking
company.
All the Keeper has to do is refer to the driver in the third
party. No “I parked here or there”, only “the driver parked here
or there”. Nobody except the driver knows who was driving and if
ParkingEye has not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold
the Keeper liable.
As any initial appeal is going to be rejected, simply follow
this advice for now:
As long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed... There
is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 58087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: ixxy
Date: February 14, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding your appeal you have 2 choices.
Option 1 admit you think there may have been a keying error (you
still don't have to name the driver), if you do that there will
one of 3 outcomes, they reject you appeal, you get offered the
£20 rate or they cancel it completely.
Option 2 you could rely on the technical interpretation of
whether a ntk is compliant with POFA, 'with the bold wording on
the front which is also a breach of the PPSCoP' which having
browsed here and Pepipoo before only seems to become a defence
in the last couple of days and unless Parking Eye have changed
their PCN letters recently never used to be an issue. This
option (with the wording below) guarantees a rejection of your
appeal by PE, probably by POPLA and would require a court to
make decision on whether the keeper can be held liable or not.
Despite the challenge to the wording often being suggested as
regularly as an appeal route I'm not sure we've actually seen
any cases where this has been recognised by POPLA as grounds for
cancelling the PCN or cases thrown out in court because of it.
If there are examples it would be nice to know as it would give
confidence it's a valid defence.
This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce
keying errors. - true but there's loads of payment machines out
there that don't do this and as we all know the cameras aren't
infallible so it's quite possible for someone to enter their
plate correctly only to be told the system can't find it which
is confusing at best.
Your choice which route you take based on your appetite for
stress, risk and cost. As DWMB2 noted "ultimately it's your
money and time at stake, not ours".
#Post#: 58091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 14, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce
keying errors. - true but there's loads of payment machines out
there that don't do this
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure that contradicts my point - the fact that loads of
operators make no effort to reduce the probability of keying
errors doesn't alter the fact it's something the code says they
should do (I'm aware it's not a 'must', sadly). I get the point
re. ANPR errors but here I still think a warning would be useful
- it would alert the driver that something was wrong, either
with the data he had input, or the parking company's systems.
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> Option 1 admit you think there may have been a keying error
(you still don't have to name the driver), if you do that there
will one of 3 outcomes, they reject you appeal, you get offered
the £20 rate or they cancel it completely.
--- End Quote ---
If I were arguing this point I'd try to argue it was a minor
keying error that should see the charge cancelled, although the
code suggests that's for similar looking characters (0 vs O, for
example) so PE would be more likely to offer £20 I reckon.
#Post#: 58102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Aldi Tottenham, Parking Eye PCN, Due to Registration Number
typing error.
DIR By: b789
Date: February 14, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why on earth would you want to admit any liability? Do you want
to throw away £20 just because of their faulty systems?
Regarding the PoFA compliance issue... I have discussed this at
length with a District Judge and it was agreed that any failure
to comply with all the requirements of PoFA invalidates Keeper
liability. The fact that PE and all the other PPCs that do not
include an invitation to the Keeper to pay for the charge,
ignore the fact that they have not complied with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)
is irrelevant. I have been pushing this argument for well over a
year now.
The fact that POPLA have not yet acknowledged a failure of PoFA
9(2)(e)(i) is simply down to the fact that they have not yet had
to refer to that point in any appeal and have upheld the appeals
on other points. When it comes to making the point in a POPLA
appeal, in order to overcome the intellectual malnourishment of
some of the assessors, they need to be led by the nose to the
reason why the NtK has failed PoFA.
The fact that it has not been argued in court is because I have
not yet had a single claim that I am advising on ever reach an
actual hearing with every one either being discontinued or
struck out, without the need for a WS that includes the PoFA
failure to be argued.
Here is the full explanation of why a ParkingEye NtK is not
fully compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i):
--- Quote ---
> Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must
include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands
their liability and has a clear course of action.
>
> The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly
requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to
either:
>
> [indent]• Pay the parking charge, or
> • Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).[/indent]
>
> This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay
because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict
wording requirements of PoFA.
>
> PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention
is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and
unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking
charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of
wording that PoFA expects.
>
> If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be
paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the
keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must
link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an
unambiguous way.
>
> The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they
fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a
valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent
adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of
explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
--- End Quote ---
Please show me a ParkingEye NtK that specifically invites (or
any synonym of the word) the Keeper to pay the charge. Their
NtKs only invite the driver to pay the charge.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page