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
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
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
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.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page