DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81393--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: July 17, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course you leave the "relevant land" argument in there. Which
Bexleyheath Asda? Don't tell us. Don't tell the POPLA assessor.
Let them figure it out.
--- Quote ---
> 1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6
7BN
> 2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 17, 2025, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Always worth a go. The vague location argument is very much a
lottery with POPLA, I've been surprised at some relatively weak
"vague location" arguments that have succeeded, and equally
surprised by some strong "vague location" arguments that have
failed.
#Post#: 83704--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 1, 2025, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now received Parking Eye's evidence pack in my POPLA
appeal. I have 7 days to respond.
I've tried my best to remove personal info only and the in/out
pictures (which are already visible in the NtH above). Other
than that, this is everything they sent. I see no response from
Arval (the lease company) nor any signed agreements from the
hirer (me). Please do let me know if I've inadvertantly left any
personal info in the document.
Google Drive link:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h0jUD-U79ubpqQMlsLJoxsYBm3Jx0cfF/view
Do I need to respond? If so, what should I be saying (or just
re-iterating what I've already said)?
Thanks!
#Post#: 83713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 1, 2025, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> Do I need to respond? If so, what should I be saying (or just
re-iterating what I've already said)?
>
> Thanks!
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, you need to respond.
You need to do two things:
- Rebut anything they claim with which you disagree, and why.
- Observe that any points you made to which they made no
response are ones they implicitly agree with.
Yes, you may end up reiterating what you already said, but many
of the POPLA assessors are a bit dim and need to be led.
#Post#: 83717--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 1, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I dont really have anything to refute with regards to what they
have submitted. Other than it being generic template based and
doesnt address any of the points made.
How does this look:
--- Quote ---
>
> POPLA Rebuttal – Response to Operator’s Evidence
> Appellant: xxxx (Hirer)
> POPLA Reference: xxxx
> Parking Charge Notice: xxx/xxx
> Vehicle: xxxx
>
> Introduction
>
> I note that ParkingEye has provided no response whatsoever to
the central grounds of my appeal, namely:
>
>
>
>
- Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
>
>
- The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.
>
>
> The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material
points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the
requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met, and this omission
significantly undermines the enforceability of their claim.
>
>
> 1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> ParkingEye has failed to include or reference the
documentation required by Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA
2012, which is mandatory if a parking operator wishes to
transfer liability to a hirer.
>
> They were required to include:
>
>
>
- A copy of the hire agreement;
>
- A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer;
>
- A statement from the hire company confirming that the details
are correct.
>
>
> They have provided none of the above.
>
> Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on
standard template documentation that does not satisfy the
statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.
>
> This is a key legal failing, and their silence on this matter
amounts to tacit acceptance that they cannot meet the conditions
required to hold the Hirer liable. Without these documents,
there is no legal transfer of liability under PoFA.
>
> 2. No Evidence of the Driver’s Identity
>
> Since ParkingEye has failed to comply with PoFA and has also
not provided any evidence of the driver’s identity, they are
unable to pursue the Hirer (me) on any basis.
>
> There is no legal presumption that the Hirer was also the
driver. As cited in my original appeal, the ruling in VCS v
Edward (2023) makes it explicitly clear that:
>
> “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.”
>
> This principle clearly applies to hirers as well, especially
when the parking operator has failed to establish a legal basis
under PoFA.
>
> 3. Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive
>
> The entire operator’s submission appears to be a generic
template, likely used in other unrelated appeals. It does not
engage with, let alone refute, the legal points I raised.
>
> Notably:
>
>
>
- There is no mention of the requirements under Paragraph 13(2)
or 14 of PoFA;
>
- No attempt to rebut my analysis of their defective NtH;
>
- No acknowledgement of their misstatement of law in earlier
correspondence where they incorrectly cited Paragraph 9 (which
only applies to Notices to Keepers);
>
- No evidence provided to establish driver liability.
>
> In summary, ParkingEye has provided no evidence that supports
their case against me as the Hirer, and their response appears
to rely on a hope that POPLA will overlook their procedural and
legal failings.
>
> Conclusion
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The
Operator has failed:
>
>
>
- To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer
liability to a Hirer;
>
- To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
>
- To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.
>
>
> As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me
and must be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 1, 2025, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to highlight to the assessor that the operator has
failed to issue a valid Notice to Hirer (NtH). What they sent
you was a reissue of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and only
referred to PoFA paragraph 9 which is irrelevant for an NtH
which must refer to paragraph 14 of PoFA.
It would appear that the operators system is working on
"autopilot" mode and simply regurgitating appeal references to
PoFA paragraph 9. As they have failed to issue a valid NtH that
fully complies with paragraph 14 of PoFA, the appellant, who is
the Hirer and the driver has not been identified, the operator
has no standing to pursue the Hirer and the PCN must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 83769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You may want to highlight to the assessor that the operator
has failed to issue a valid Notice to Hirer (NtH). What they
sent you was a reissue of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and only
referred to PoFA paragraph 9 which is irrelevant for an NtH
which must refer to paragraph 14 of PoFA.
>
> It would appear that the operators system is working on
"autopilot" mode and simply regurgitating appeal references to
PoFA paragraph 9. As they have failed to issue a valid NtH that
fully complies with paragraph 14 of PoFA, the appellant, who is
the Hirer and the driver has not been identified, the operator
has no standing to pursue the Hirer and the PCN must be
cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
The back of the notice they sent to me does have this section,
where they mention Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 and also state that
the hire company have sent them a copy of the signed hire
agreement and statement of liability. Were they obliged to
include this in their evidence pack, if they had received it?
Should I be referring to this (further than what I've already
put above)?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/u0AJLmq.png
#Post#: 83770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well spotted. My bad. However, did they include a copy of the
original NtK and the following documents with the NtH?
[indent](a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the
vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the
vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under
that hire agreement.[/indent]
Whilst they may have received a copy of (b) and (c) as stated on
that NtH, they are obliged to include those copies with the NtH
when it is issued.
#Post#: 83776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Well spotted. My bad. However, did they include a copy of the
original NtK and the following documents with the NtH?
>
> [indent](a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the
vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the
vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
>
> (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
>
> (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer
under that hire agreement.[/indent]
>
> Whilst they may have received a copy of (b) and (c) as stated
on that NtH, they are obliged to include those copies with the
NtH when it is issued.
>
--- End Quote ---
They did not include any of those documents when they sent me
the NtH. Nor have those documents been included in the evidence
pack (in neither the NtK section sent to Arval, nor in the NtH
section sent to me). They've omitted them completely.
I've amended Section 1's wording slightly to make this clearer:
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground
of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply
with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(Schedule 4).
> To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company
(as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict
conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.
>
> In particular:
> •
served with the NtH:
> o
firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was
hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
> o
> o
under that hire agreement.
> •
Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully
complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
> •
by:
> o
> o
>
> As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice
to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice
to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph
13(2). ParkingEye has failed to provide:
> •
> •
> •
> •
details.
>
> As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met
the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring
liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.
>
> Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on
standard template documentation that does not satisfy the
statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.
>
> The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material
points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the
requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met and that they
cannot meet the conditions required to hold the Hirer liable.
Without these documents, there is no legal transfer of liability
under PoFA.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83787--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> In particular:
> • Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be
served with the NtH:
> o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire
firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was
hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
> o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
> o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer
under that hire agreement.
>
--- End Quote ---
The above is not quite correct. Paragraph 13 is about the
obligations on the creditor and the Keeper. Paragraph 14 is
about the obligations on the creditor and the Hirer.
Paragraph 13 governs the creditor's ability to recover from the
Keeper (the lease/hire company). It sets out the conditions
under which the creditor loses the right to pursue the Keeper if
the hire company provides certain documents within 28 days.
Paragraph 14 governs the creditor's ability to pursue the Hirer.
It states that the creditor may only do so if:
[indent]• They are unable to pursue the Keeper (because the
Keeper provided the documents under Paragraph 13);
• And they have served the Hirer with:
[indent]•A Notice to Hirer;
• A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
• The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).[/indent][/indent]
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page