DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106171--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 16, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You appeal to POPLA using the appeal points you used already,
but amplifying or expanding them to lead the POPLA assessors
through the reasons why the appeal should be accepted. Refer to
the legislation
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
and why
the notice does not comply, and therefore why the liability can
not be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper.
There are lots of POPLA appeals documented here.
If you can construct your own and post it here you will get
guidance on any improvements or modifications before you send
it.
#Post#: 106477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: January 19, 2026, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref]
Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
Operator: ParkingEye Ltd
1. Keeper position – no admission of driver and no keeper
liability
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute
this Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual
agreement.
There will be no admission as to who was driving and no
inference may be drawn. ParkingEye is put to strict proof of the
driver’s identity.
ParkingEye may only pursue the registered keeper if it has fully
complied with every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The burden of proof rests entirely
with the operator. As set out below, the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
fails to comply with PoFA and therefore keeper liability cannot
arise.
2. Failure to specify a period of parking – PoFA Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(a)
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires the NtK to “specify the
period of parking to which the notice relates”.
The NtK does not specify any period of parking. It merely states
the times at which ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering
and leaving the site. These timestamps are not a period of
parking in law and necessarily include time spent driving,
manoeuvring, or queueing, when the vehicle was not parked.
As this is a mandatory requirement of PoFA and it has not been
met, the NtK is non-compliant and cannot transfer liability to
the keeper.
3. Failure to include a valid invitation to the keeper to pay –
PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to include an invitation
to the keeper to pay the parking charge or, alternatively, to
name the driver.
The NtK does not do this. Instead, it states that “the driver of
the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in
full” and then instructs the keeper to name the driver if they
were not driving. This wording does not invite the keeper to pay
the charge in the alternative, as required by PoFA.
This is a further failure to comply with PoFA, and keeper
liability cannot arise.
4. No contract capable of being formed – prohibitive signage
The prominent signage at the site states:
“3 hour max stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours.”
This wording is prohibitive. Outside store hours, parking is
forbidden rather than offered on contractual terms. A
prohibition cannot form a contractual offer capable of
acceptance, and therefore no contract can exist and no
contractual parking charge can arise.
At most, any alleged issue would be a matter of trespass, which
could only be pursued by the landowner and not by ParkingEye as
a contractual claim.
5. Misleading barrier arrangement – lack of fair and transparent
notice
This is a barrier-controlled car park. At the material time:
The entry barrier was raised when the vehicle entered
The exit barrier was raised when the vehicle left
On a barrier-controlled site, the position of the barriers is a
key indicator of whether parking is permitted. An open entry
barrier reasonably conveys that the car park is open and
available for use.
If the store and car park were in fact closed, leaving the
barrier open was misleading conduct and failed to provide fair
and transparent notice of any restriction. This is contrary to
basic consumer law principles and undermines any suggestion that
the driver knowingly accepted or breached any parking terms.
6. Nonsensical “maximum stay” of 0 hours 0 minutes
The NtK asserts that the applicable “maximum stay” was “0 hours
0 minutes”.
This is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with.
A term that is impossible to perform cannot form part of a valid
contract. A Parking Charge Notice relying on such a description
is unclear, defective, and unenforceable.
7. Conclusion
ParkingEye has failed to establish keeper liability due to
multiple breaches of the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. There is no legal
presumption that the keeper was the driver.
Separately and in any event, no contract was capable of being
formed due to prohibitive signage, misleading barrier
arrangements, and an incoherent description of the alleged
parking terms.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
allows this appeal and directs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking
Charge Notice.
Would you make any changes to this or would this be fine?
#Post#: 106558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: ixxy
Date: January 19, 2026, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Point 1 all fine as long as the POPLA assessor agrees with your
assessment the PCN breaches POFA requirements. As b789 who gave
you that defence argument loves to point out POPLA assessors are
not legally trained and are unlikely to get into the semantics
of the wording.
Point 2 that's how the industry works, this will not help with
getting POPLA to uphold your appeal.
Point 3 see point 1.
Point 4 may be valid, unlikely a POPLA assessor will agree,
Parkingeye signage is often held as best practice.
Point 5, I know this car parking having parked the myself. To
call it barrier controlled is pushing the concept, from memory
it's a couple of manual pole type barriers. Whether they were
open or not doesnt materially impact your case. Most car parks
don't have barriers, you can assume that means parking
restrictions aren't in force.
Point 6 The wording is indeed clumsy but is factually correct,
there is a max stay of 0 minutes being offered (consideration
period not withstanding), contractually if you stay longer you
agree for them to invoice you at the rate on the signage.
Point 7 let's see what the POPLA assessor thinks.
Bottom line is you don't have any strong grounds for appeal
here, the POPLA appeal is just going through the motions of
running the clock down until they (probably) give up before
having to pay a court fee.
#Post#: 114802--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: March 30, 2026, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have got the appeal outcome from POPLA and it has not been
succesfull.
What would be the next steps for this now?
Thanks
#Post#: 114812--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 30, 2026, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up the appeal outcome.
#Post#: 114833--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Clarke066
Date: March 30, 2026, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the
parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have
summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They
advise they are the keeper and deny any liability or contractual
agreement and there will be no admission to who was driving and
has also quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They
have also quoted paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and
said the PCN does not invite the keeper to pay the charge or
name the driver. • They say the PCN does not specify the period
of parking and just shows ANPR cameras recorded the entry and
exit times and not parking times. • They state there is no
contract capable of being formed as the signs say “3 hour max
stay – Strictly no parking outside of store hours” as the
wording is prohibited and outside of store hours, parking is
prohibited rather than offered on contractual terms. They say
the PCN asserts that the maximum stay was 0 hours 0 minutes and
is self-evidently incoherent and impossible to comply with an
impossible term cannot form a valid contract. • They say there
is a misleading barrier arrangement as the barrier was raised
and if the store was closed, this was misleading conduct and
failed to provide fair and transparent notice of any
restriction. All of the above has been considered in making my
determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the
signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and
conditions of parking. The signs state “…Strictly no parking
outside of store hours…” The motorist is also advised that
failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a
PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided Automatic
Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images to demonstrate when the
vehicle entered the site and how long it remained there for. •
They advise they are the keeper and deny any liability or
contractual agreement and there will be no admission to who was
driving and has also quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA). They have also quoted paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) and said the PCN does not invite the keeper to pay
the charge or name the driver. The Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer
the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the
driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to
follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper
that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided
with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN
in question has the necessary information and the parking
operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability
onto the registered keeper. • They say the PCN does not specify
the period of parking and just shows ANPR cameras recorded the
entry and exit times and not parking times. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its
parking operators need to comply with. While the ANPR images do
not show the period of parking, section 2.19 if The Code states
that a parking event begins when a vehicle enters, and remains,
on controlled land. • They state there is no contract capable of
being formed as the signs say “3 hour max stay – Strictly no
parking outside of store hours” as the wording is prohibited and
outside of store hours, parking is prohibited rather than
offered on contractual terms. They say the PCN asserts that the
maximum stay was 0 hours 0 minutes and is self-evidently
incoherent and impossible to comply with an impossible term
cannot form a valid contract. I have reviewed the signs and can
see they state that there is a 3-hour maximum stay and no
parking outside of store opening hours. As no parking is
allowed, and the vehicle remained on site, the terms were
broken. I am satisfied that there is a contract capable of being
formed. • They say there is a misleading barrier arrangement as
the barrier was raised and if the store was closed, this was
misleading conduct and failed to provide fair and transparent
notice of any restriction. On private land, barriers are not
required to show if the site is open or closed as the terms
visible advise motorists what is expected. POPLA’s role is to
assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with
the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of
the car park have not been met, as the vehicle remained on site
when it was not authorised, I conclude that the operator has
issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.
#Post#: 114851--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 30, 2026, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Next steps is you sit back and wait for the debt collectors
(which you can ignore) followed by a letter of claim which you
ant ignore. Nothing else constructive you can do now. Your
appeals were rejected.
#Post#: 114858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - After Hours - Asda Hayes
DIR By: Sander333
Date: March 30, 2026, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely the sign just stating no parking whilst store is closed
without giving the operating hours defeats the object.
I could reasonably go to the shop and find that it was closed
but did not know what times it was operating and leave.
This is similar to the notices in retail car parks near sports
grounds whereby it states a maximum stay of 90 minutes on match
days. Unless I am an ardent sports fan I would not know if a
sports event was taking place on a particular day. I am sure
thar a case has been thrown out of court under these
circumstances.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page