DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98145--------------------------------------------------
PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: Liffey
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver entered the car park, found a space and parked. The
driver was taking their minor daughter to an urgent optician's
appointment.
The PCN has been received in the post today
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Kxms9gp2/20251114-130736.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/7tbpGDdn
HTML https://i.ibb.co/k63rf0mz/20251114-130745.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/G3s1LkHG
#Post#: 98159--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't the driver enter their VRM details into the terminal?
#Post#: 98162--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: Liffey
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They were not visiting either of the businesses it applies to
#Post#: 98165--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: November 14, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Then the only argument the Keeper has is to decline to identify
the driver and rely on the fact that their Notice to Keeper
(NtK) does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA
2012 and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.
You would have to persuade ParkingEye, POPLA and, ultimately, a
judge that their NtK does not comply with PoFA paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) for the following reason:
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or
nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include
certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)…
(e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a
statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required
element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such
thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2).
Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant
or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator
cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires
the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the
keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must
invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper
liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when
demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The
demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g.
language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days”
/ “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence
that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The
word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral
data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any
invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i)
forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an
invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to
either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to
the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the
9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA
compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on
strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice
invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is
not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer
liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not
identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
#Post#: 98206--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: Liffey
Date: November 14, 2025, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks
#Post#: 98224--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: Liffey
Date: November 15, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would there be any poiny in also arguing that the time stamps
don't reflect the length of parking or that the grace period
hasn't been given?
#Post#: 98250--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 15, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Liffey link ---
>
> Would there be any poiny in also arguing that the time stamps
don't reflect the length of parking or that the grace period
hasn't been given?
>
--- End Quote ---
In a word 'No'.
The grace period is not a period of free parking - the grace
period is the period which allows the driver to examine the
offer of contract and decide if they wish to either remain on
site or leave.
Your argument would have validity if there had been a payment
which fell slightly short on time - for example, if you paid for
60 minutes but your 'time on site' was 70 minutes.
#Post#: 98251--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 15, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, the “grace period” is the extra time added to a valid
payment for parking.
--- Quote ---
> It is essentially the period of time required for a driver to
identify and read the signs that display the parking terms and
conditions – plus the time it takes to exit the car park should
they decide not to accept the terms and conditions. If the
driver decides to park, the consideration period falls away – it
is not a period of ‘free parking’ before the parking event
starts.
>
> Unlike the grace period, the duration of the consideration
period varies depending on the number of spaces in the car park
and other factors, including exceptional circumstances. For
detailed information, see the table in Annex B (page 35) of the
Code of Practice.
--- End Quote ---
The “consideration period” is the one about thinking about the
contract and deciding not to enter into it.
See
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
#Post#: 98261--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: November 15, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Consideration and grace periods have nothing to do with this
PCN. The vehicle was on the private property in breach of the
terms and conditions.
Read the alleged contravention:
--- Quote ---
> By either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by
remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not
entering your registration details via the terminal, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage,
the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the
Creditor).
--- End Quote ---
I specifically asked why did the driver not enter their VRM into
the terminal and was told "They were not visiting either of the
businesses it applies to".
The only defence the Keeper has is to not identify the driver
and plead no PoFA liability as para 9(2)(e)(i) has not been
complied with.
#Post#: 98269--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parking Eye Gale St Dagenham
DIR By: Liffey
Date: November 15, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Consideration and grace periods have nothing to do with this
PCN. The vehicle was on the private property in breach of the
terms and conditions.
>
> Read the alleged contravention:
>
> [quote]By either not purchasing a valid pay and display
ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted,
or by not entering your registration details via the terminal,
in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the
signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as
the Creditor).
--- End Quote ---
I specifically asked why did the driver not enter their VRM into
the terminal and was told "They were not visiting either of the
businesses it applies to".
The only defence the Keeper has is to not identify the driver
and plead no PoFA liability as para 9(2)(e)(i) has not been
complied with.
[/quote]
Ok, thank you. I was a bit concerned as you said this argument
would ultimately need to convince a Judge. Does that mean
ParkingEye will take me to court?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page