DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74285--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 2, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And here is the Popla appeals part of it:
02 June 2025
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 588456/770105
POPLA Ref: 6061535201
The quickest and easiest way to submit your
appeal is online. This usually takes 15 minutes.
Simply visit www.popla.co.uk to get started
Grounds for appeal
The grounds under which you can appeal a parking charge notice
are:
1. My vehicle was stolen.
2. I wasn’t improperly parked.
3. The amount requested on the parking charge notice isn’t
correct.
4. I wasn’t the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle
at the time of the alleged
improper parking (not valid for Scotland or Northern Ireland
appeals)
5. Extreme circumstances prevented me from parking correctly.
6. Other
How to appeal to POPLA
Once you’ve appealed directly to the Operator about your Parking
Charge Notice, they’ll give
you a 10-digit verification code that enables you to bring your
appeal to us. You must use
this within 28 days of the date of the Operator’s rejection
notice.
The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal is online at
www.popla.co.uk. The
benefits to submitting your appeal online include:
 The process begins immediately and takes 15 minutes.
 You can manage and track the status of your appeal
online.
 You’re able to instantly upload supporting information
and view what the Operator
submits.
 You’ll get a faster decision.
 Reduce your carbon footprint by going paperless.
If you’d prefer to submit your appeal to us by post, please use
the enclosed form. The
completed form and copies (not originals) of all supporting
information (i.e. photographs or
documents) need to reach us within 28 days of the Operator
issuing their notice of rejection.
We recommend getting a certificate of posting when you send your
submission. Please be
aware that nothing you send us can be returned.
Late appeals can only be considered in exceptional
circumstances, at the Assessors
discretion. We’ll need you to include a clear explanation of why
your appeal is late, either on
the form or on a separate sheet. We’ll also need copies of any
supporting information, the
Operator’s rejection notice, and the envelope it was in (if it
was posted).
Appeals about parking charges issued in Scotland or Northern
Ireland
We can now accept appeals relating to Parking Charge Notices
issued in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, if you’re:
 The driver of the vehicle and the person who received
the Parking Charge Notice, or
 Appealing on behalf of the driver who received the
Parking Charge Notice.
If you’re appealing on behalf of the driver/ registered keeper,
please include a letter from
them authorising you to act on their behalf.
If you require additional help and support
We’re happy to provide additional support to anybody who needs
it. Please contact us by
phone where you’d find that helpful.
#Post#: 74372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2025, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't sound surprised. I did say this in post #37:
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You can also choose to do nothing and wait for their formal
rejection with the POPLA code, which they’ve said will follow
after 28 days.
>
--- End Quote ---
The appeal has now been rejected by ParkingEye, and they’ve
issued a POPLA code. You now have 33 days from the date of this
rejection (2 June 2025) to submit a POPLA appeal. That is plenty
of time to prepare and you should do a search of the forum to
find other POPLA appeals and note the structure of those
appeals.
You can now begin drafting your POPLA submission. This will
focus on the most compelling legal and evidential arguments,
including:
[indent]• Non-compliance with PoFA 2012 – particularly
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f)
• Notice not deemed ‘given’ within 14 days due to misdirected
address (rebutting the presumption)
• Lack of evidence of a clear contract and signage, especially
at night
• Failure to consider disability-related reasonable adjustments
under the Equality Act 2010
• Driver not identified – and no Keeper liability established
• Put them to strict proof that they has a valid contract
flowing from the landowner at the time[/indent]
This is a bare bones outline for your POPLA appeal. You should
research each point and expand on them. You are leading the
POPLA assessor to the conclusion that the PCN has been issued
incorrectly and that they should uphold your appeal. Do not send
anything until you've shown us what you intend to write so that
we can advise further. As mentioned, you have until 5th July to
submit this, so don't rush it:
--- Quote ---
> 1. I am submitting this appeal on behalf of the registered
keeper, who has a recognised disability that affects their
executive functioning and ability to manage correspondence. Due
to these circumstances, a Letter of Authority was submitted to
ParkingEye during the initial appeal. This was accepted by the
operator, who has since continued to correspond with me as the
keeper’s authorised representative. From that point onward,
ParkingEye were fully aware that a vulnerable person was
involved and should have acted in accordance with their
obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Their failure to
consider or apply any reasonable adjustments must weigh heavily
against them in this appeal.
>
> 2. The notice to keeper fails to comply with paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. It does not invite the keeper to pay the
unpaid charge and does not contain the required wording to
transfer liability to the keeper. As a result, the operator
cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the keeper.
>
> 3. The notice to keeper was not deemed given within 14 days,
as required under paragraph 9(5). It was sent to an old address
and only received after being redirected. The presumption under
PoFA that a notice is deemed delivered two working days after
posting has been rebutted in this case. The operator must prove
when the notice was actually received.
>
> 4. The signage at this site is not clear or visible in the
conditions at the time. The incident occurred just after
midnight. The car park was poorly lit, and there was no visible
payment machine or prominent signage to alert the driver that
any action was required beyond parking and entering the
restaurant. The operator is put to strict proof that signage was
clear, conspicuous, and met the BPA Code of Practice standards.
>
> 5. The driver is disabled and has diagnosed ADHD and mental
health conditions that affect time perception, spatial awareness
and attention. The operator failed to consider their duty under
the Equality Act 2010 to anticipate and make reasonable
adjustments, such as additional time allowances or more
prominent instructions. This is not a discretionary matter. It
is a legal obligation.
>
> 6. The driver has not been identified. The operator cannot
rely on PoFA because the notice is non-compliant and was not
delivered within the required timeframe. No liability can be
transferred to the keeper.
>
> 7. The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, unredacted
contract with the landowner that was in effect at the time of
the alleged contravention and permits them to issue and enforce
parking charges in their own name at this specific site. A
witness statement or site agreement with a managing agent is not
sufficient. Only the landowner or a party with legal standing to
authorise enforcement can grant such authority.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 74461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 3, 2025, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Karma. I have asked son to try and get some photos of
the signage at night but he says that now he is aware of them,
they are pretty clear, its just that he had simply not
registered them at all. You can see there are signs there on
some Google maps pictures but not on others, but its not clear
when they were put up.
I will give this proper attention and research the forum for
other responses and take my time doing so and then share to get
your input before sending anything to POPLA.
#Post#: 74991--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 5, 2025, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi. I have made a couple of small adjustments to the above
response you have kindly put together for me and wanted to share
it for critiquing. I have a Word document with the two photos of
the MacDonalds car park I have got from Google Maps that I can
upload but cannot quite remember how to do it, I do apologise.
Thank you for your input in advance:
I am submitting this appeal on behalf of the registered keeper,
who has a recognised disability that affects their executive
functioning and ability to manage correspondence. Due to these
circumstances, a Letter of Authority was submitted to ParkingEye
during the initial appeal. This was accepted by the operator,
who has since continued to correspond with me as the keeper’s
authorised representative. From that point onward, ParkingEye
were fully aware that a vulnerable person was involved and
should have acted in accordance with their obligations under the
Equality Act 2010. Their failure to consider or apply any
reasonable adjustments must weigh heavily against them in this
appeal.
The notice to keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
and 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. It does not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid charge and
does not contain the required wording to transfer liability to
the keeper. As a result, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to
pursue the keeper.
The notice to keeper was not deemed given within 14 days, as
required under paragraph 9(5). It was sent to an old address and
only received after being redirected. The presumption under PoFA
that a notice is deemed delivered two working days after posting
has been rebutted in this case. The operator must prove when the
notice was actually received.
The signage at this site has not always been there as can be
seen in the photos below taken from Google Maps where the first
one does not show any signage and the one below that shows the
sign is there but with no indication of where or how to pay,
just that there is further signage in the car park somewhere.
The Driver is not a regular visitor so therefore did not know to
look for signs that were not originally there in previous
visits, particular when it was dark, after 10.40pm and lighting
was not particularly good and there was no visible payment
machine or prominent PAY HERE signage to alert the driver that
any action was required beyond parking and entering the
restaurant. There appears to only be one other sign which is
small and with no obvious means of where to pay. The operator is
put to strict proof that signage was clear, conspicuous, and met
the BPA Code of Practice standards.
On top of which, the driver is disabled and has diagnosed ADHD
and mental health conditions that affect time perception,
spatial awareness and attention. The operator failed to consider
their duty under the Equality Act 2010 to anticipate and make
reasonable adjustments, such as prominent and clear signage
inside the MacDonalds restaurant, warning patrons of the need to
restrict their stay to within 90 minutes, and how to pay if they
planned to stay over 90 minutes or risk receiving a parking
fine. This is not a discretionary matter. It is a legal
obligation.
The driver has not been identified. The operator cannot rely on
PoFA because the notice is non-compliant and was not delivered
within the required timeframe. No liability can be transferred
to the keeper.
The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, unredacted
contract with the landowner that was in effect at the time of
the alleged contravention and permits them to issue and enforce
parking charges in their own name at this specific site. A
witness statement or site agreement with a managing agent is not
sufficient. Only the landowner or a party with legal standing to
authorise enforcement can grant such authority.
I therefore, on behalf of the registered Keeper of the vehicle
ask all the above points to be taken into consideration and the
parking charge issued by ParkingEye for a stay of less than 210
minutes in a MacDonalds car park be dismissed, where the Driver
had purchased a meal and stayed to eat it, having been made
unaware by the restaurant staff that there was a maximum stay of
90 minutes, or a clear sign about how to pay if staying over
that time.
Kind regards,
#Post#: 74997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: b789
Date: June 5, 2025, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That is a strong draft overall and covers the key points. With
some refinement to improve clarity, structure, and POPLA appeal
tone, here is a suggested revised version and incorporating your
original arguments more precisely:
--- Quote ---
> I am submitting this appeal on behalf of the Registered
Keeper, who has a recognised disability affecting their
executive function and ability to manage correspondence. A
signed Letter of Authority was submitted and accepted by
ParkingEye during the initial appeal process. From that point
forward, all correspondence has been conducted via their
appointed representative. ParkingEye were therefore on notice
that a vulnerable person is involved and had a duty under the
Equality Act 2010 to consider and apply reasonable adjustments.
Their failure to do so must weigh heavily against them.
>
> 1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012 – paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(f)
>
> The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory
wording required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. Specifically, it does not include the required
invitation to the keeper to pay, and it does not meet the
conditions for transferring liability from the driver to the
keeper. Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to pursue
the keeper for this charge.
>
> 2. Notice not ‘given’ within 14 days
>
> The PCN was sent to an outdated address and was only received
after redirection. The operator obtained the address from the
DVLA, but the V5C had not yet been updated at the time. The
presumption of delivery under PoFA paragraph 9(6) is rebuttable,
and in this case, it has been rebutted. The operator is put to
strict proof of when the notice was actually received by the
keeper.
>
> 3. Unclear and insufficient signage
>
> The driver visited the site after 10:40pm in the dark. There
was no prominent signage indicating a requirement to pay or
register if staying beyond 90 minutes. Google Street View images
show that signage at this location has changed and was not
always present or visible. Even where signage exists, it is not
sufficient to alert a reasonable person late at night,
particularly where no clear “PAY HERE” instructions or visible
payment machines are present. The operator is put to strict
proof that the signage was adequate, prominent, and in full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> 4. Failure to consider Equality Act 2010 obligations
>
> The driver of the vehicle is disabled and has diagnosed ADHD
and associated mental health conditions (confirmed by their GP),
which affect time perception, attention, and executive function.
These conditions meet the definition of disability under the
Equality Act 2010.
>
> While the operator may not have known this at the time of the
parking event, they were explicitly informed during the appeal
process that the Keeper is a vulnerable person with a recognised
disability and is unable to manage their own correspondence. A
signed Letter of Authority was submitted and accepted by
ParkingEye, who continued correspondence with the appointed
representative.
>
> The Equality Act 2010 imposes both anticipatory and responsive
duties on service providers. ParkingEye had a duty to anticipate
the needs of disabled motorists by ensuring signage and payment
methods are accessible to those with cognitive impairments. Once
they were made aware of the driver’s disability, they had a
further responsive duty to consider reasonable adjustments,
including reassessing whether enforcement of this charge was
appropriate in the circumstances.
>
> Their failure to take any such steps — despite being put on
notice — amounts to a breach of their statutory duty under the
Act.
>
> 5. Driver not identified – Keeper liability not established
>
> The driver has not been identified. The operator cannot rely
on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable because (a) the notice was
non-compliant and (b) it was not “given” within the required
timeframe. Therefore, no liability can transfer to the keeper.
>
> 6. No evidence of landowner authority
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, unredacted,
contemporaneous contract with the landowner that permits them to
issue and enforce parking charges at this location in their own
name. A witness statement or contract with a managing agent is
not sufficient. POPLA and case law are clear that only the
landowner or a party with proprietary rights can authorise such
enforcement.
>
> Given the above, this charge is invalid and must be cancelled.
The driver was a legitimate customer of the restaurant, remained
on-site, purchased a meal, and there was no reason to believe
any parking charge would arise from simply sitting and eating.
The operator's failure to comply with PoFA, to consider the
protected characteristics of the parties involved, and to
demonstrate landowner authority all require this appeal to be
allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 75090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 6, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant, thank you. Should I therefore not worry about
attaching the Google Maps photos because, in all honesty, in sun
and daylight, the sign looks quite visible in the photo so it is
50/50 as to how much credibility it gives to the argument of
poor signage.
I will just hold fire on sending the above exactly as laid out
until you confirm whether to that if okay. Once I have the okay,
I shall get the appeal off to POPLA.
#Post#: 75098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: b789
Date: June 6, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless the photo shows errors in the wording that can be used
against them, and it is taken in similar lighting conditions
that were at the time of the alleged contravention, this is is
unlikely to be of much use.
Without seeing gather photo you are referring to, it is
impossible to give further advice.
#Post#: 75105--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 6, 2025, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, I think your reference to it in the wording of the
appeal is what I will stick with and therefore not include the
photo at this time, I shall send the appeal then and thank you,
I shall keep you posted.
#Post#: 75109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: Ahead4life
Date: June 6, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to ask this but I am currently on the POPLA appeal and it
asks for the Motorists Details. I have uploaded the Letter of
Consent to say I have authority to act on my sons behalf, who is
the Registered Keeper and will be putting my details as Your
Details but assume I have to put my sons details in Motorists
Details? I am aware of course that we are not admitting who the
Driver was, therefore wanted to not take any missteps at this
stage.
#Post#: 75114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN sent to old address even though DVLA had
updated address and driver has new licence - can it be igno
DIR By: b789
Date: June 6, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're right to tread carefully here. On the POPLA form:
[indent]• "Your details" should be your name and contact
information, as you are the person submitting the appeal and
have authority to act on the Registered Keeper’s behalf.
• "Motorist’s details" is intended to refer to the Registered
Keeper – not necessarily the driver.[/indent]
Therefore:
[indent]• You should enter your son's details (name and address)
under "Motorist’s details", as he is the person the PCN was
issued to.
• This does not admit who was driving. POPLA will not treat this
as an admission that the Keeper was the driver unless you say so
explicitly in the appeal narrative.[/indent]
You've already uploaded the Letter of Consent (LoC), which
covers why you're acting on his behalf. Just ensure your appeal
wording continues to state clearly that:
[indent]“The identity of the driver is not being provided, and
the operator cannot rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
due to statutory non-compliance.”[/indent]
So you're doing everything correctly – just don’t refer to your
son as the driver in the body of the appeal and you'll avoid any
misstep.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page