DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: Sam27
Date: August 3, 2025, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for this, I have appealed, let's see what they
come back with.
#Post#: 84225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: Sam27
Date: August 5, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parkingeye have rejected my appeal and issued a POPLA code, I
was surprised at how quickly especially as they did not even
send a NtK and the photographic evidence is so poor, what are
they trying to achieve? Do they have that much confidence in
POPLA finding in their favour? :o
#Post#: 84261--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: b789
Date: August 5, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have 33 days from the rejection date of the initial appeal
to submit your POPLA appeal. Just do a search of the forum for
other recent POPLA appeals to get an idea on how to put one
together.
Show us before you send anything.
#Post#: 84509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: Sam27
Date: August 6, 2025, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Having searched the forum, I have cobbled together the following
POPLA appeal, copying mainly b789’s comments. I’ve focussed on
the fact that I did not receive a NtK and their photos don’t
show the vehicle parked in the EV bays, any guidance/help would
be appreciated:
==================
POPLA Ref:
ParkingEye PCN Ref:
VRN:
No Notice to Keeper (NtK). No original Notice to Keeper (NtK)
has been received. As such, ParkingEye have failed to comply
with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which
requires a compliant NtK to be served within the prescribed
timeframe and to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper
to pay under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). This requirement serves to
ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a
clear course of action.
The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly
requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to
either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was
not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay
because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict
wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention
is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and
unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking
charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of
wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid"
or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to
pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the
keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they
fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a
valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent
adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of
explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c). PoFA paragraph
9(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to describe:
• How the parking charge arose.
• How the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the
driver.
In this case, no NtK has been received so ParkingEye's NtK fails
to meet these requirements.
Appellant not being the individual liable. Under Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may
only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking
charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined
in Paragraph 9. As no NtK has been received, the operator has
not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer
liability to the registered keeper.
I put the operator to strict proof that:
• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA
Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the
registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact,
the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged
contravention.
There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was
the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the
operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the
registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without
such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for
the charge.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear
PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue
me, the registered keeper, for this charge.
Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention. The evidence
provided by ParkingEye consists solely of two photographs
showing the vehicle parked in a bay, the images do not show the
location of the vehicle relative to any signage or bay markings,
nor do they establish that any contravention occurred. The
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle was
parked in an EV charging bay, therefore ParkingEye has failed to
provide any proof of the specific location where the vehicle was
parked within the car park.
As a result, ParkingEye has not sufficiently evidenced that a
contravention occurred, and this appeal must be upheld.
===============
#Post#: 84584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: b789
Date: August 7, 2025, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No idea why you have fixated on PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as that would
only apply if you had received the original NtK. I suggest you
concentrate on the following points, in this order:
The Keeper was not the driver
No original NtK received
Put them to strict proof of posting the original NtK
No evidence of any contravention.
Put them to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the
landowner to issue PCNs in their own name.
So, try the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the
driver on the date of the alleged contravention. I am under no
legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated
private parking firm and I decline to do so.
>
> No original Notice to Keeper received
>
> As the Keeper, I cannot be liable as no original Notice to
Keeper (NtK) was received. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), ParkingEye may only hold the keeper
liable if a compliant NtK is posted to arrive within the
relevant period (14 days for ANPR cases). I assert that no such
notice was received.
>
> Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that where
an Act authorises service by post, service is deemed to be
effected by properly addressing, pre-paying, and posting the
document — and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been
effected at the time it would ordinarily be delivered. That
presumption is rebuttable, and I rebut it here by stating that
no NtK was received.
>
> The burden now shifts to ParkingEye to prove actual posting.
It is not sufficient to rely on system-generated timestamps or
internal logs showing that a notice was “generated”. The BPA/IPC
PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2, reinforces this requirement:
>
> [indent]“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working
day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose,
“working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales. Parking operators MUST
retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply
of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any
third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal
system).”[/indent]
>
> I put ParkingEye to strict proof that:
>
> [indent]• The NtK was handed to a mail consolidator or postal
service on a specific date.
> • It was posted in time to arrive within the relevant
period.[/indent]
>
> Without such evidence, the presumption of service is rebutted
and keeper liability cannot be established.
>
> No Evidence of Any Contravention
>
> ParkingEye has failed to provide any evidence that a
contravention occurred. The only images supplied are:
>
> [indent]• ANPR photographs showing the vehicle entering and
exiting the car park.
> • A close-up, very dark image of the rear (or possibly the
front) of the vehicle taken at night, with no visible signage,
bay markings, or identifiable location.[/indent]
>
> These images do not show the vehicle parked in an EV charging
bay, nor do they demonstrate that any terms and conditions were
breached. There is no photographic evidence of the vehicle’s
position within the car park, no indication of any signage that
was visible to the driver, and no proof that the vehicle was
parked in a restricted or designated bay.
>
> ANPR systems record entry and exit times, not bay-level
activity. Without clear, timestamped images showing the vehicle
parked in breach of specific terms, ParkingEye has failed to
meet the evidential burden required to enforce a charge.
>
> In the absence of any evidence of a contravention, the charge
must be cancelled.
>
> ParkingEye is put to 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 POPLA 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]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: Sam27
Date: August 7, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for this, I guess my inexperience and lack of
knowledge shone through in my attempt!
I will remove the lines ref ANPR as I don't believe there are
ANPR cameras on site and if they were there are no ANPR
photographs showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car
park, they may have them in the NtK but I have not seen or
received this, I can't even find the Ntk on their website, I
think they usually show this there?
The only two photos in the PCN reminder are as shared above, and
these are the only two shown on their website under 'view
photographic evidence', they seem to be captured by one of their
lackeys 26 minutes apart both of the rear of the vehicle, but
very grainy and no evidence of where they are parked.
#Post#: 87998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Parking Charge Halifax
DIR By: Sam27
Date: September 1, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for your help, it looks like Parkingeye ran
with their tails...., they withdrew my POPLA appeal, see email
from POPLA:
--- Quote ---
>
> The operator has contacted us and told us that they have
withdrawn your appeal.
> If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the
reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you
cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that
POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not
be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to
resubmit your appeal to us.
> If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has
reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As
the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s
involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any
further action.
> Kind regards
> POPLA Team
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page