DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73768--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 29, 2025, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes, I agree, I’d missed that because I was so hung up on the
byelaw issue.
#Post#: 73804--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: b789
Date: May 29, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1
However, it is interesting to see PE trying on the same excuse
that MET use at Stansted and Gatwick airports. Just because the
land is “private” does not mean it cannot be covered by byelaws.
However, the PoFA failure alone is sufficient to quash this.
#Post#: 73904--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 30, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again for your assistance on this matter, before I post,
is something like this suitable;
I respectfully submit this response to the evidence provided by
ParkingEye. Their submission fails to rebut the key legal
grounds on which my appeal is based.
1. ParkingEye Confirm They Are Not Relying on the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
ParkingEye clearly state in their evidence: “Please be advised,
this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.”
This is a crucial admission. If a private parking operator
chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA, they cannot pursue
the registered keeper for the charge if the driver has not been
identified.
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have
not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and
common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me
as the keeper.
2. The Land Is Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA
Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control through
byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968,
confirmed by the Secretary of State on 2 May 1994. As such, the
land falls outside the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA
Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1), which explicitly excludes land
subject to statutory control. Even if ParkingEye had attempted
to rely on PoFA (which they have not), they would be barred from
doing so due to the nature of the land.
3. No Hirer Liability Applies
I note that ParkingEye have not alleged that I am the hirer of
the vehicle, nor have they provided any documentation or
evidence of a hire agreement. Even if they were to attempt this,
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 sets out strict requirements for
holding a hirer liable—none of which have been fulfilled, and
none of which apply if PoFA is not being used.
4. Conclusion
To reiterate:
* ParkingEye admit they are not using PoFA.
* The land in question is not “relevant land” under PoFA.
* The driver has not been identified.
* I am the registered keeper and cannot be held liable under
these circumstances.
#Post#: 74017--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 31, 2025, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, good morning everyone. Before I submit my post, I just
wanted to ensure everything was okay with it, or does it need
amending? If somebody could advise, would really appreciate it.
I've got this far and I don't want to mess it up. Best regards.
#Post#: 74020--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: b789
Date: May 31, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would advise amending this bit in section 1 of your response:
--- Quote ---
> In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have
not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and
common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me
as the keeper.
--- End Quote ---
to
--- Quote ---
> In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and the
driver has not been identified. Therefore, under statute and
common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me
as the keeper.
--- End Quote ---
Did you send or link to a copy of the byelaws when you made the
appeal? If so, simply highlight in section 2 that a copy of
those byelaws were provided with the initial appeal and the
operator has not addressed this issue. Just because land is
"private", does not mean that those byelaws do not apply.
Otherwise, good to go.
#Post#: 74145--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: June 1, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
b789 - again thanks for your help. I have submitted my comments
to POPLA; 'We are writing to update you about your appeal.
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a
queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on
your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first
submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us
will be the decision on your appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
Best Regards
#Post#: 81886--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: July 21, 2025, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning, I've just received a response from POPLA;
'Your appeal was successful'
'As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not
effective and you do not need to take any further action'
Thank you all, really appreciate your assistance throughout.
Best regards.
#Post#: 81887--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 21, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please share with us the assessor's reasoning?
#Post#: 81891--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: July 21, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see reasoning;
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal. • The driver has not been identified, no presumption
of driver liability. • The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012 is not applicable as the land in question, Milton County
Park, is subject to statutory control under byelaws made
pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by
the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. 1. The
land is not relevant land; the registered keeper cannot be held
liable if the driver has not been identified. • The driver has
not been identified. After reviewing the parking operator’s
evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and
expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a
byelaws document as evidence to support their appeal. The above
evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: I
acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The
burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it
has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied
that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the
validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the
keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not
attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator
continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first
consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is,
based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence,
I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver.
As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator
has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and
therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on
this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of
appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this
appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page