DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66335--------------------------------------------------
3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: JLA
Date: April 9, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, i stupidly got 3 pcn's from Parking Eye for overstaying the
3 hour time limit and after reading some of the threads on here
saying some PE NTK's weren't PoFA compliant i just wondered if
these were or not and if I had any grounds to appeal them on
that basis? Any help/advice appreciated.
Thanks.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/3mrnWT6c/20250403-100421.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/3mrnWT6c
HTML https://i.ibb.co/W42msDhF/20250403-100427.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/W42msDhF
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Mysj3DrP/20250403-131433.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Mysj3DrP
HTML https://i.ibb.co/6cfLtcNn/20250403-131441.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/6cfLtcNn
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LhZCbLgP/20250409-101425.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/LhZCbLgP
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1Y2vXBQ4/20250409-174059.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/1Y2vXBQ4
#Post#: 66345--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 9, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Typically Parking Eye thinks its invoices are compliant with
PoFA when it includes a section on the topic on the rear, as
yours do.
There is a technical argument that, even so, they’re not
compliant but this would probably need to be tested in court
with no guarantees of success.
#Post#: 66364--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: b789
Date: April 9, 2025, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Were you a customer of Lidl?
#Post#: 66476--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: JLA
Date: April 10, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No i wasn't unfortunately, i just stupidly didn't realise there
was a limit in the Lidl car park.
#Post#: 66569--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: JLA
Date: April 11, 2025, 12:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No flaws with pcn's worth trying to appeal with? If not, i need
to pay discounted rate in a couple of days for 1st one.
Thanks.
#Post#: 66608--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: b789
Date: April 11, 2025, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's up to you. Whilst the NtKs are substantially compliant with
PoFA, they are not fully compliant. I use this analogy to
explain why they aren't...
Just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, an
NtK cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA complaint. It is a
binary issue. It either is or it isn't. In this case it isn't
and therefore liability cannot be transferred from the unknown
driver to the known Keeper.
This is the reason the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA:
--- 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:
>
> • Pay the parking charge, or
> • Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).
>
> 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 ---
It's up to you to decide whether you think that you have a
defence as the Keeper as it is likely that ParkingEye will
pursue this all the way to a claim.
#Post#: 67034--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: JLA
Date: April 14, 2025, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, hope someone can clarify things for me. Received these two
reminders from Parking Eye for 2 of the 3 PCN's posted earlier.
I understood i had 14 days from the date the 1st pcn was deemed
delivered which i thought was 2 days after the date the pcn was
issued to pay the discounted rate. Therefore I thought that the
1st pcn issued on 31/3/25 (del 2/4/25) allowed me until 16th
April to pay at the reduced rate, but when I went on the Parking
Eye website today it says I owe the full charge of 90.00 for
that pcn and then I noticed on the reminder they sent me (below)
that it says on the back i have until 13th Apr to pay the
reduced rate. This is wrong surely?
The reminder for the 2nd pcn which was issued on 1/4/25 (del
3/4/25) says on the back i have until 14th Apr to pay the
reduced rate, but I think i have until 17th Apr. Am I right on
both of these or have I got it wrong?
If i am right, what can I do about the full charge they now say
is due? Presumably they will change the charge to the full
amount for the 2nd pcn tomorrow too.
Any advice appreciated please.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/8D2KdVVr/20250414-141607.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/8D2KdVVr
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Hpgr7SB3/20250414-141615.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Hpgr7SB3
HTML https://i.ibb.co/JRwF40Dz/20250414-141628.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/JRwF40Dz
HTML https://i.ibb.co/84skfxhK/20250414-141939.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/84skfxhK
#Post#: 67062--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3 x Parking Eye PCN's
DIR By: b789
Date: April 14, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No. The 14 day discount is from the issue date of the NtK. What
is relevant to the 28 days from "receipt" is the deadline to
appeal before they can initiate debt recovery action.
Check the PPSCoP:
--- Quote ---
> 8.2.2. A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where
payment is made within 14 days of the issue of the Notice to
Driver where a notice is issued at the time of the parking
event, or of the issue of the Notice to Keeper and/or Notice to
Hirer where the first notice is sent through the post
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1