DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71459--------------------------------------------------
Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: bee0821
Date: May 14, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello
We're in a situation exactly like the one described here:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-milton-country-park-cambridge/
£100 PCN at Milton for 30 min overstay (impossible to pay for
overstay on exit). As in the above thread, this was a lease car
so not registered keeper (we were notified first by lease
company and just today received the PCN in the post).
I attach photos of the front and back of the PCN.
I'd be really grateful to know if advice to us would be the same
as the advice to the poster above.
Thanks very much in advance for any help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: RichardW
Date: May 14, 2025, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you receive any other documents with the PCN?
#Post#: 71477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: bee0821
Date: May 14, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, only the single page letter above
#Post#: 71530--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: May 14, 2025, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst you are not the Keeper, as the Hirer, the exact same
principles apply as in the other case. Any appeals must come
ONLY from the Hirer and you only reference the Notice to Hirer
(NtH) rather than the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
Only you know the identity of the driver and, as the Hirer, you
are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company.
You have added advantage that the vehicle is Hired/leased.
ParkingEye have failed to comply with all the requirements of
PoFA paragraph 14 which means that the Hirer cannot be liable.
Also, because the location is not relevant land for the purposes
of PoFA, the same condition applies... no Hirer liability.
All you need to do is follow the exact same steps as in the
other thread.
#Post#: 71631--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: bee0821
Date: May 15, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much. I've just seen that the poster in the other
thread has posted Parking Eye's response, so I might wait to see
what people advise about that response.
#Post#: 71643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 15, 2025, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The self-styled Parking Charge Notice is incoherent nonsense.
Pl don't dignify it with a status it does not deserve.
Facts:
The whatever-it-is was posted on Monday 12th May (the 'issue'
date is a Saturday) and therefore deemed served Wed. 14th.
The 'Date of event' was 31 March.
Elapsed period: 46 days.
It was served on the addressee because they had been
'identified(by who we don't know)/identified themselves as the
driver.'
A Notice to Driver may only be served on the vehicle before it
leaves the site.
The ANPR shot shows the vehicle leaving the site.
So, it's not a Notice to Driver.
A Notice to Keeper must be served no later than 14 days after
the 'event'.
So, it's not a Notice to Keeper either.
It doesn't carry the wording required by para. 14 Schedule 4
neither does it refer to Hirer, whether preceded by the words
'Notice to' or not.
It wasn't accompanied by the documents mandated under para. 14.
So, it's not a Notice to Hirer.
So, it's a goodness knows what?
The only thing which fits the bill is that the creditor is
claiming that the addressee is the driver and in these cases
there is no prescribed form of notice, it could be written on
the side of a cow (although the postage would be high) and
contain whatever words they wanted.
#Post#: 71644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: bee0821
Date: May 15, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That sounds reassuring, thank you very much!
On the other thread
(
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-milton-country-park-cambridge)<br
/>it looks like Parking Eye are rejecting the response:
"Please note, it is Parkingeye’s position that this charge was
issued following a contractual breach of the terms and
conditions in operation onsite, and that we had reasonable cause
to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA. Please
note that our lawful bases for processing data are Performance
of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. Parkingeye do not rely
on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and
pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges. We are
registered with the ICO to collect and process data for the
purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with
appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.
We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request
that we remove data from our system and cease processing in this
instance at this stage, and can confirm that your appeal has now
been passed back to our dedicated Appeals Team for further
consideration.
Please note you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO in
respect of this response, should you wish to do so. You may also
seek a judicial remedy.
For further information about your rights as a data subject,
plus information about the categories of data we process, data
transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes
of processing, please visit:
HTML https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/"
They're also rejecting the appeal and referring the poster to
POPLA.
Sorry to duplicate things but these cases are nearly identical,
hence reposting. Does this response change people's view of this
PCN?
#Post#: 71687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I refer you to this response in the other thread:
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, you have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit
your POPLA appeal. Have a search of other POPLA appeals on here
and see what you can come up with, based on the information you
have been told about in this and the other thread. Don't send
anything before you post it here so that we can advise on
anything you should add or remove or edit.
>
> Remember, the first thing the assessor will want to determine
is whether you, the Keeper can be liable as the drivers identity
has not been provided. As this location is covered by byelaws,
PoFA does not apply.
>
> If the POPLA assessor cannot determine the drivers identity
and PoFA does not apply to land that is covered by statutory
byelaws, that should end the matter as far as POPLA is
concerned. However, you can throw in the kitchen sink is as a
backup, just in case the assessor on the day is one of those
doltish types we often see.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 71776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: bee0821
Date: May 16, 2025, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much May I just check that this as an initial
response to Parking Eye:
"Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for
vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the
driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your
correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the
keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act").
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not
be doing so.
For the avoidance of doubt, even if you had attempted to rely on
Schedule 4 of the Act, you would have failed to establish
liability, as the location in question—Milton Country Park—is
subject to statutory control by byelaws. As such, the land is
not “relevant land” within the meaning of the Act, and the
provisions of Schedule 4 do not apply.
I am therefore unable to assist you further with this matter,
and I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been
cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue
a POPLA code.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]"
From the other thread is appropriate in my case? And/or ought I
to include anything in addition from the points H C Andersen
makes above?
Thanks again for your help, much appreciated!
#Post#: 71840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milton Country Park PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: May 16, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just send the initial appeal as you have been advised. There is
no point in overthinking this.
ParkingEye will reject the appeal and issue a POPLA code where
you can follow the process as advised on the other thread.
ParkingEye not relying on PoFA to hold theKeeper liable. Even if
they were, which they aren't, they could not hold the Keeper
liable. The driver has not been identified. End of!
The fact that the vehicle is leased/hired snd that they did not
issue a PoFA compliant NtH is another factor but it really isn't
worth adding that at this stage. As long as the driver remains
unidentified, there is nowhere for this to go.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page