DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101422--------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: December 8, 2025, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Driver has entered the car park after closing hours and entry
barrier was open so assumed store was open.
When leaving car park the entry barrier was down but exit
barrier open.
Is there any appeal for this?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mrtnjrM5/Pic-2-Copy.png
HTML https://ibb.co/kV0L7VW2
HTML https://i.ibb.co/CKzPxZ62/Pic-1-Copy.png
HTML https://ibb.co/5h6KqykF
Thanks
#Post#: 101496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is always an appeal for these Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). Can you get any photos of the terms and conditions signs
at the car park? The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued for
"staying without authorisation" but without seeing what the
wording on their terms sign says, that allegation cannot be
verified.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Parkingeye has relied on contract law allegations
of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Parkingeye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: December 8, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I will get a picture of the sign and upload it.
#Post#: 101573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: December 8, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hF0wSh6X/IMG-20251208-WA0021.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/60QLkVMv
HTML https://i.ibb.co/4Z16t6nq/IMG-20251208-WA0018.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/svW0R0df
#Post#: 101576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver entered the car park after store closing hours and
saw that the entry barrier was raised. This created a reasonable
belief that the store and car park were open for use, as
barrier-controlled sites normally indicate availability by the
position of the barrier. When leaving, the exit barrier was
open, reinforcing the impression that parking was permitted.
Only the entry barrier had lowered by that time, but this
inconsistency makes it impossible to conclude that the driver
knowingly parked in breach of any term.
The signage states that parking outside of store hours is
strictly not permitted. This is a prohibition rather than an
offer, which means no contract could be formed. A driver cannot
accept a contract where the sign simply forbids parking rather
than offering parking for a charge. In such circumstances, no
contractual parking charge can arise.
The notice to keeper also states that the maximum stay was zero
hours and zero minutes, which is nonsensical and incapable of
forming the basis of a contract. A term that is impossible to
comply with cannot create liability.
Even if ParkingEye attempts to rely on the Protection of
Freedoms Act, keeper liability can only exist where clear terms
were offered and breached. No clear contractual term was offered
here because the wording was prohibitive, the barrier position
conveyed that the site was open, and the driver could not
reasonably have known that parking was not authorised.
In consumer law, operators must ensure that all terms are fair
and transparent and must not mislead users by omission or
conduct. Leaving the barrier open while relying on a prohibitive
term that is not prominently conveyed does not meet that
standard.
The overall position is that no contract was formed, the conduct
of the operator misled the driver into believing the site was
open, and the alleged term is unclear and unenforceable.
Appeal as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref] – Vehicle [VRM]
>
> I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute
your Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual
agreement.
>
> There will be no admission as to who was driving and you must
not make any inference or assumption. You are put to strict
proof of the driver’s identity. Your Notice to Keeper can only
transfer liability to the keeper if every requirement of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is met; the
burden is entirely on ParkingEye to demonstrate full compliance.
>
> In fact your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with at least
paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4.
>
> 1. Paragraph 9(2)(a) – no period of parking
> Your notice does not specify any “period of parking” as
required. It merely states the times at which ANPR cameras
recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site. Those are
not, in law, the same thing as a period of parking, and they
include time spent driving, queueing, or otherwise not parked.
The mandatory requirement of 9(2)(a) is therefore not met.
>
> 2. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) – no invitation to the keeper to pay
> Your notice does not contain the required invitation to the
keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead it states that “the
driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking
charge in full” and demands that, if the keeper was not the
driver, they must name the driver and pass the notice to them.
That wording is not what Parliament prescribed in 9(2)(e)(i) and
it does not invite the keeper to pay the charge in the
alternative. As such, the condition in 9(2)(e)(i) is not
satisfied and keeper liability cannot arise.
>
> Given these failures, ParkingEye cannot hold the keeper liable
under PoFA. There is also no legal presumption that the keeper
was the driver, nor can liability be imposed on the keeper under
any supposed law of agency. Your Notice to Keeper can only ever
have effect against the driver.
>
> Separately and in any event, no contract was capable of being
formed at this site. The prominent signage states “3 hour max
stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours.” This is a
prohibition, not an offer of parking on terms. Outside store
hours parking is simply forbidden, so no contractual licence is
offered and no contractual parking charge can arise. At most,
any issue would be a matter of alleged trespass for the
landowner, not a contractual claim for £100 by ParkingEye.
>
> At the material time the entry barrier was raised and the exit
barrier was raised when the vehicle left. On a
barrier-controlled site, the position of the barriers is a key
part of how the operator indicates whether the car park is open.
An open entry barrier reasonably indicates that the site is
available for use. If the store and car park were in fact
closed, leaving the barrier open was misleading and failed to
give fair and transparent notice of any restriction.
>
> Your own notice then asserts that the applicable “maximum
stay” was “0 hours 0 minutes”. That is self-evidently incoherent
and incapable of forming a clear parking term which any
reasonable motorist could understand or comply with. A Parking
Charge Notice relying on such a nonsensical “maximum stay” is
void and unenforceable.
>
> In light of (a) the NtK’s clear non-compliance with PoFA 2012,
and (b) the prohibitive signage, misleading barrier arrangements
and defective description of the alleged contravention, there is
no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for this charge.
I will not be naming the driver.
>
> Please confirm that the Parking Charge has been cancelled. If
you refuse, I require a POPLA verification code so that I may
refer the matter to independent appeal.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101580--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: December 8, 2025, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow thank you.
I have now appealed with the above and will let you know the
outcome.
Thanks again for your help
#Post#: 102510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: December 15, 2025, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/nqmJ4d86/Parking-Ticket-Ref.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/xKLTw98X
Reply from Parking Eye. Assuming will need to wait for Popla
Code?
#Post#: 102511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 15, 2025, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
Standard fishing letter trying to get you to divulge the
identity of the driver.
You can ignore, although [member=26]b789[/member] usually
prefers to send them a short response.
#Post#: 102535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yup, I would just emailtee following in response to that letter:
--- Quote ---
> Re: PCN [reference] / Vehicle [VRM]
>
> Dear ParkingEye Team,
>
> I acknowledge your letter dated [date].
>
> As the registered keeper, I am under no obligation to identify
the driver and I will not be doing so.
>
> Your correspondence suggests you intend to pursue the keeper
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That is
misconceived because your Notice to Keeper is not PoFA
compliant, including (but not limited to) the following
mandatory failures:
>
> [indent]1. Paragraph 9(2)(a): you have not specified any
period of parking. You have provided only ANPR entry/exit
timestamps, which are not a period of parking.
>
> 2. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): your Notice to Keeper does not
include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the
charge. Instead it demands payment from the driver and attempts
to compel the keeper to name the driver.[/indent]
>
> As a result, you cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver, and I
will not enter into any discussion about driver identity.
>
> You have stated the appeal is “on hold” for 28 days. The
correct outcome is now straightforward: either cancel the
charge, or issue a POPLA verification code so that the matter
can be referred to independent appeal. If you reject the appeal,
please ensure your rejection letter includes the POPLA code.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 106170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: January 16, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now recieved a follow up email with the POPLA Ref code.
What would be the next steps to follow?
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page