DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Corrected - thanks!
--- Quote ---
>
> In particular:
>
> • Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be
served with the NtK:
> 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.
>
> • Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the
Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully
complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
>
> • Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied
by:
> o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
> o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
>
> 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 me (as Hirer):
>
> • The Notice to Keeper;
> • A copy of the hire agreement;
> • A copy of the signed statement of liability;
> • A statement from the hire company confirming the hire
details.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Could you give your approval for the overall response before I
submit it?
--- 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 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 NtK:
> 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 me (as Hirer):
>
> •
> •
> •
> •
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.
>
>
> 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#: 83790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> • Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be
served with the NtK:
> 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 ---
Still not quite right! There is no way the creditor could serve
copies of those documents with the NtK as at that stage, they
have no idea whether the vehicle is rented.
The claim that “Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following
documents be served with the Notice to Keeper (NtK)” is legally
incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of PoFA Schedule 4.
Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 does not impose any obligation to
serve documents with the Notice to Keeper. Instead, it sets out
the conditions under which the Keeper (the lease/hire company)
may avoid liability for a parking charge.
Specifically, Paragraph 13(2) states that the Keeper may
transfer liability to the Hirer only if, within 28 days of
receiving the NtK, the Keeper provides the creditor with:
[indent](a) A statement confirming the vehicle was hired to a
named person;
(b) A copy of the hire agreement;
(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the
Hirer.[/indent]
These documents are not served with the NtK, nor are they the
Keeper’s obligation to send to the Hirer. They are sent by the
Keeper to the creditor to shift liability away from themselves.
The requirement to serve these documents on the Hirer arises
under Paragraph 14(2), which governs the creditor’s ability to
pursue the Hirer. It states that the Notice to Hirer must be
accompanied by:
[indent]• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper;
• The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).[/indent]
So, the creditor, not the Keeper, must serve these documents on
the Hirer—and only if they wish to lawfully transfer liability
under PoFA.
Summary
Paragraph 13(2): Governs the Keeper’s ability to avoid liability
by supplying documents to the creditor.
Paragraph 14(2): Governs the creditor’s obligation to serve
those documents on the Hirer if they wish to transfer liability.
Your original statement confuses these roles and misattributes
the obligation to the Keeper. This distinction is critical in
determining whether liability has been lawfully transferred
under PoFA.
#Post#: 83793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahh.... yes, I totally missed that.
Here it is updated:
--- 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.
>
> Paragraph 13(2) states:
>
> The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to
recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in
the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which that notice was given, the
creditor is given—
>
> • (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.
>
>
> Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the
Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully
complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
>
> Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
>
> o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
> o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
>
> 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 me (as Hirer) any of these
relevant documents:
>
> • The Notice to Keeper;
> • A copy of the hire agreement;
> • A copy of the signed statement of liability;
> • A statement from the hire company confirming the hire
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.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to remind the POPLA assessor that you are appealing
as the Hirer and therefore cannot be liable for the charge! Just
quoting PoFA to the assessor without establishing that the
driver is not identified and your capacity as the appellant is
that of the Hirer.
#Post#: 83824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You may want to remind the POPLA assessor that you are
appealing as the Hirer and therefore cannot be liable for the
charge! Just quoting PoFA to the assessor without establishing
that the driver is not identified and your capacity as the
appellant is that of the Hirer.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. Added to the introduction and edited the Conclusion
slightly.
Other than that, would you say this is enough for me to submit?
--- Quote ---
>
> Introduction
> I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle to which this
Parking Charge Notice relates. The driver has not been
identified.
>
> I note that ParkingEye has failed to address the central
grounds of my appeal, namely:
>
> 1. Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
> 2. 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. Accordingly, there
is no lawful basis to transfer liability for this charge to me
as the Hirer.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
>
> Conclusion
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The
Operator has failed:
> •
liability to a Hirer;
> •
> •
>
> As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me,
as the Hirer, and must be cancelled.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Should be. Personally, I would throw in putting the operator to
strict proof that it holds a valid contract flowing from the
landowner to issue PCNs in their own name. It wouldn't be the
first time that this operator has failed to provide an unto date
contract.
Have a search for some recent POPLA appeals where this has been
added to the POPLA appeal. I have this from the LoC template:
--- Quote ---
> Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I found the following (posted by you) from this thread:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/eurocarpark-sainsbury-s-ilford-parking-pcn-overstayed-90min-free-parking/msg80767/#msg80767
I did originally have a section on the ambiguity of the location
but removed it (see my post here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-eye-pcn-overstayed-by-17-mins-asda-bexleyheath/msg81212/#msg81212).<br
/>I wasnt sure I could add it as it relates to the NtK, which
technically I had not received (although the lease company sent
a copy of it).
Can I introduce this now, given I did not put it in my original
appeal?
This is what I have (and included the section from your post
above). I'm a bit unsure of this entire section, so would
appreciate if you could provide any pointers if Im on the right
track.
--- Quote ---
>
> 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
from the unknown driver to the keeper. This step is necessary
for them to subsequently transfer the liability to myself (the
Hirer).
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof that they held a
valid contract with the landowner to operate and issue PCNs at
“ASDA BEXLEYHEATH”. Any evidence submitted must be unredacted
and must include all elements required under Section 14.1(a) to
(j) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
>
> Before issuing any parking charges, the operator must hold
written confirmation from the landowner that includes:
>
> 1. Identity of the landowner
> 2. A boundary map of the managed land
> 3. Any applicable byelaws
> 4. Permission granted and its duration
> 5. Parking terms and conditions (e.g. free periods, tariffs,
exemptions)
> 6. Method of issuing charges (e.g. windscreen or post)
> 7. Responsibility for obtaining consents (e.g. planning,
signage)
> 8. Documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on
request
> 9. Approach to handling appeals
>
> All of the above must be evidenced in full and unredacted if
the operator relies on landowner authority. A simple letter of
authority does not satisfy the requirements of section 14.
>
> As there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, the
liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, therefore the PCN
is invalid and this appeal must be upheld.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83833--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's just POPLA. You can introduce what you like in your POPLA
appeal. It has nothing to do with your initial appeal to the
operator.
#Post#: 83835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: fezster
Date: August 2, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My appeal to POPLA has already been submitted, though (without
this point in it). The POPLA email to submit comments says:
[QUOTE]
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of
appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA,
we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
[/QUOTE]
That's why I asked - can this be introduced at this stage?
#Post#: 83877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN – Overstayed by 17 mins – ASDA Bexleyheath
DIR By: b789
Date: August 3, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are talking about responding to the operators evidence,
then you cannot introduce new appeal points. However, you can
see if the operator has rebutted all your appeal points and if.
not, highlight those to the assessor. If the operator has
introduced something that was not in your initial appeal, then
you can rebut that.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page