DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: June 28, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'd send that response. It is to the point and tells
them, very politely to Arkell v Pressdram! ;D
#Post#: 80463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 10, 2025, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a rejection and POPLA code - screenshot below.
Question from me - should my POPLA argument just be focused on
the 2 arguments in above posts? I.e.
• You did not invoke Schedule 4 in your NtH;
• You did not include copies of the documents required under
Paragraph 13(2), such as the hire agreement and statement of
liability;
Or should I be putting more in there too?
Guidance appreciated please.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Wo1BIHG.png
#Post#: 80492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2025, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Your points are that the driver has not been identified.
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) did not comply with all the
requirements of PoFA, most notably the operator failed to comply
with paragraph 14(2)(a) of PoFA and failed to include copies of
the documents mandated in paragraph 13(2).
Because of that, there can be no Keeper liability.
That should be the end of the matter but you can do a search for
other POPLA appeals on the forum and see how that have been
structured.
You actually have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection
to submit your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 80886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 14, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this look for my POPLA appeal (tried to keep it focused
on Point 1)?
--- Quote ---
>
> I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by
Parking Eye as the Hirer on the following grounds:
>
> 1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA
Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14
>
> The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14,
meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
>
> The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule
4, Paragraphs 13 & 14. To transfer liability from the Keeper to
the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires
that the operator provides:
>
> A copy of the hire agreement.
> A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
> A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company
confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged
contravention.
>
> Parking Eye has failed to provide any of these documents with
the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory
conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
>
> Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The
creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under
paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in
accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this
paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to
the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
>
> Given the failure to comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability
cannot be transferred to the Hirer, this Parking Charge Notice
is unenforceable. Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this
appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
>
>
> 2. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
>
> The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion
about when payment is actually due:
>
> The top of the NtH states: “PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100.
PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”
>
> However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after
22 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second
working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not
been paid in full, we will have the right to recover any amount
that remains unpaid from you.”
>
> This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008)
because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
>
> 3. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine
Pre-Estimate of Loss
>
> Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a
genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking
charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.
This charge is excessive and not justified.
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> Given the multiple legal failures identified above, this
Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. As the operator has
failed to:
>
> Comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred
to the Hirer.
> Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand
misleading and unfair.
> Justify the charge as a legitimate contractual agreement or
genuine pre-estimate of loss.
>
> Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel
the charge immediately.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: July 14, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a
genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking
charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.
>
--- End Quote ---
The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be
a GPEoL...
#Post#: 80902--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 14, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JustLoveCars link ---
>
> [quote author=fezster link=topic=6810.msg80886#msg80886
date=1752486185]
> Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a
genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking
charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.
>
--- End Quote ---
The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be
a GPEoL...
[/quote]
I copy/pasted from another thread -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-parking-charge-notice-no-permit-moving-out/
Are you saying this should be removed?
#Post#: 80940--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: July 14, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> I copy/pasted from another thread -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-parking-charge-notice-no-permit-moving-out/
>
> Are you saying this should be removed?
>
--- End Quote ---
The case you've linked is a residential case and not a 'simple'
shopping centre overstay.
There are potential arguments around GPEoL in residential cases
- but does not apply here and POPLA will not rule for you here.
(The keeper liability point is the key argument)
#Post#: 81021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 15, 2025, 2:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I found this thread:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parkingeye-charge-notice-for-3minutes-in-retail-carpark/45/
with a response from b789.
I plan on using this - but would appreciate if someone could
just validate that keeper/hirer liability is enough (or if I
should be adding more things - eg. There being 2 Asda
Bexleyheath's when you search on Google).
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012
>
> I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:
>
> [indent]1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and
14)
>
> To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire
company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14
impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only
the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to
enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):
>
> [indent]13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement
of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a
copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on
behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information
contained in the statement of liability is correct.”[/indent]
>
> In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must,
within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer
accompanied by:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper;
> • A copy of the hire agreement;
> • A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
> • A statement from the hire company confirming the hire
details.[/indent]
>
> ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with
the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the
Hirer legally ineffective.
>
> As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer
if both:
>
> [indent]• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph
13(2); and
> • they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2),
including providing the required documentation.[/indent]
>
> Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the
purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
>
> 2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or
Inference Permitted
>
> As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with
PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability
to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4,
liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
>
> Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of
the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued
a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient
is liable.
>
> There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or
Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in
persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit
Judge held that:
>
> [indent]“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a
presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert
that the keeper was the driver.”[/indent]
>
> This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or
assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA
or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances,
the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove
the identity of the driver.
>
> As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the
NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to
pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground
alone.
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and
14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer
liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
> • The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the
driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal
case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that
an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or
“balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the
driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
> [/indent]
>
> For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice in full.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 16, 2025, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Im considering adding this paragraph with regards to "relevant
land". However, I'm unsure if it is relevant as:
1. I am not the registered keeper (I am the hirer)
2. The NtH did not include a copy of the NtK, when sent to me
(albeit, the lease company did send me a copy of the NtK)
My basis for including this is that if liability cannot be
transferred to the keeper, then it cannot be transferred to the
hirer - do I need to explicitly state this?
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land –
No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
>
> Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper
liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with
the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
> "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
>
> The NtK issued by Parking Eye merely states “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH”
as the location, without giving the full postal address or any
further detail. This is wholly inadequate to satisfy the
requirement to identify the “relevant land” under PoFA.
>
> Importantly, there are two ASDA locations in Bexleyheath:
>
> 1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6
7BN
> 2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ
>
> Without a full and specific address on the PCN, there is no
way for the registered keeper to determine where the vehicle was
alleged to have been parked, and no fair opportunity to verify
or contest the claim. This ambiguity is material and renders the
notice non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, the keeper cannot
be held liable.
>
> As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as
required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Parking
Eye has not met the conditions required to transfer liability to
the keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: July 17, 2025, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to leave the relevant land argument and submit the
below. I'd really appreciate if someone could cast their eye
over it and give their blessing - I dont want to mess it up.
Also - when submitting the appeal, there are 2 options I can
select from (which are relevant):
1. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle
at the time of the alleged improper parking.
2. Other
Is it right to go with Option 1, as one of the reasons given is:
- You were not the driver at the time of the alleged improper
parking.
Thanks!
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012
>
> I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:
>
> [indent]1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and
14)
>
> To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire
company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14
impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only
the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to
enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):
>
> [indent]13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement
of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a
copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on
behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information
contained in the statement of liability is correct.”[/indent]
>
> In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must,
within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer
accompanied by:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper;
> • A copy of the hire agreement;
> • A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
> • A statement from the hire company confirming the hire
details.[/indent]
>
> ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with
the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the
Hirer legally ineffective.
>
> As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer
if both:
>
> [indent]• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph
13(2); and
> • they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2),
including providing the required documentation.[/indent]
>
> Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the
purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
>
> 2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or
Inference Permitted
>
> As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with
PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability
to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4,
liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
>
> Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of
the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued
a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient
is liable.
>
> There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or
Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in
persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit
Judge held that:
>
> [indent]“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a
presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert
that the keeper was the driver.”[/indent]
>
> This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or
assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA
or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances,
the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove
the identity of the driver.
>
> As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the
NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to
pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground
alone.
>
> 3. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
>
> The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion
about when payment is actually due:
>
> The top of the NtH states: “PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100.
PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”
>
> However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after
22 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second
working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not
been paid in full, we will have the right to recover any amount
that remains unpaid from you.”
>
> This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008)
because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
>
> Conclusion
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and
14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer
liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
> • The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the
driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal
case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that
an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or
“balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the
driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
> • Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand
misleading and unfair.
> [/indent]
>
> For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice in full.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page