DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 6, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to comment.
You need to observe that any points you made which are not
addressed are implicitly agreed by them. So the out of time
issue, for one.
You need to disagree with points they have made.
If you post what you’ve received, using something like Google
Drive for example, people here may be able to comment also.
#Post#: 97052--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 6, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK here is their submission:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sPCuRcyAY_JJeHaa5EJ-CGPgY-Ju9kn2/view?usp=drivesdk
I would be grateful if anyone can help on what to comment.
#Post#: 97066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 6, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What did you submit to POPLA?
#Post#: 97076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 6, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I submitted to POPLA a slightly edited version of what was
stated to Parking Eye:
I write as the registered keeper regarding PCN 708543/683695
(Ilford Retail Park; alleged event 01/05/2025 at 17:11).
The Notice to Keeper was issued well outside the relevant period
(over two and a half months after the alleged incident) and does
not purport to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. In the absence of PoFA reliance, there is no lawful
route to keeper liability.
The parking company's repeated requests that the keeper
identifies the driver is therefore misconceived and unlawful.
There is no legal obligation to provide driver details and no
adverse inference can be drawn from a refusal. No admissions are
made as to the identity of the driver and I had declined the
request.
Should ParkingEye assert otherwise, they must identify the
precise legal basis on which they contend keeper liability
arises without PoFA. They have thus far failed to do so.
It therefore follows that this PCN must be cancelled, and any
continued demands for payment or identifying the driver is
unlawful.
I trust this appeal will be alllowed and the parking company
ordered to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully
#Post#: 97126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 6, 2025, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nice single point POPLA appeal. Having looked through their so
called "evidence", it is very clear that there is unlikely to
have been any human input into this decision to pursue the
Keeper. That, or any human who has been involved with this is
intellectually malnourished and utterly incompetent.
You can copy and paste this into the webform response to the
operators "evidence":
--- Quote ---
> Before considering any alleged breach or contravention, POPLA
must first determine whether the keeper can be held liable.
Since the operator has expressly disclaimed reliance on PoFA and
the driver has not been identified, the answer is clearly no.
Accordingly, the appeal must be upheld and the Parking Charge
Notice cancelled.
>
> The operator has confirmed in their own evidence that this
Parking Charge Notice was not issued under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, there is no lawful basis for
holding the registered keeper liable. I have not identified the
driver, and there is no legal requirement to do so. As a result,
liability cannot transfer to the keeper, and the appeal must be
allowed.
>
> Furthermore, the operator’s evidence includes false claims
about the contents of my appeal, referring to arguments
regarding pre-estimation of loss and the Beavis case that I
never raised. This demonstrates either negligence or deliberate
misrepresentation. POPLA must disregard those statements as
irrelevant and untrue.
>
> Additionally, I did not put the operator to strict proof of
landowner authority, yet in their infinite wisdom (or obvious
lack of it) they have included these redacted documents as part
of their own evidence. In doing so, they have shot themselves
squarely in the foot.
>
> The so-called “Supply Agreement” shows an “Effective Date”
hidden by redaction, signed on 2 April 2019, and defining an
“Initial period” of 24 months (the handwritten alteration of
“36” to “24” makes that crystal clear). There is no legible
clause or written evidence showing any extension or renewal. On
its face, the agreement expired by April 2021.
>
> Since the alleged event took place on 1 May 2025—over four
years later—this paperwork proves that ParkingEye had no
continuing authority to operate or issue PCNs at this site. They
have therefore provided the very evidence that confirms their
lack of standing.
>
> POPLA cannot simply assume continuation of a lapsed contract,
particularly when key dates are redacted and the signatory’s
status is unknown. Without valid and contemporaneous landowner
authority, ParkingEye had no legal capacity to issue or enforce
this Parking Charge.
>
> Their own evidence completely undermines their position, and
the appeal must be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN issued after 12 weeks - Ilford Retail Park
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 7, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Have replied with that.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page