DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107045--------------------------------------------------
ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: greenwedge
Date: January 22, 2026, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m looking for informed views on a ParkingEye parking charge
where the core issue is not mitigation, but unclear allegations,
contradictory evidence, and procedural errors.
What happened
A vehicle of which I am the registered keeper was issued a
ParkingEye PCN at a pay-and-display car park. I was not the
driver on the day and I have never identified the driver.
From the outset, the problem has been that ParkingEye never
clearly stated what the alleged breach actually was.
The PCN / NTK problem
The Notice to Keeper does not clearly specify a single breach.
It refers to:
either failure to pay for parking, or
an overstay of the permitted period.
Both are presented, but neither is clearly identified as the
allegation. The online portal initially described the issue as
non-payment, while later correspondence leaned toward overstay.
This ambiguity made it impossible to know what was actually
being alleged.
Internal contradictions (SAR disclosure)
After submitting a Subject Access Request, ParkingEye disclosed
internal records that directly contradict each other:
One internal “whitelist” / payment record shows:
payment was logged,
a two-hour stay was authorised,
with a valid period recorded.
A separate internal system record for the same event states:
“Paid duration: 0 minutes”
“Allowed duration: 0 hours”.
These records cannot both be correct. ParkingEye has never
explained:
how these conflicting records arose, or
which one was relied upon to issue the charge.
No audit trail, reconciliation logs, or backend explanation were
provided.
Driver identity and POPLA
I consistently stated that I was not the driver and did not
provide driver details.
Despite this, POPLA treated narrative wording referring to
payment as an admission that I was the driver, even though no
name or address for service was ever provided. In my
understanding, payment does not identify the driver, and keeper
liability cannot arise without POFA compliance.
POPLA also refused to engage with the contradictory records,
stating that rebuttal evidence amounted to “new grounds”, while
simultaneously accepting ParkingEye’s inconsistent data at face
value.
Where this now stands
The operator relies on unclear allegations (non-payment vs
overstay).
Its own disclosed records contradict each other.
The driver was never identified.
POPLA assumed driver identity and did not resolve evidential
conflicts.
This now appears to be heading toward court, and I’m trying to
sanity-check:
whether an NTK that does not clearly specify the alleged breach
can found liability;
whether contradictory internal records undermine reasonable
cause and evidential reliability;
whether POPLA was entitled to infer driver identity from
payment-related wording. and chose to ignore parking eyes own
evidence where correspondence stated I was not the driver. which
I can clearly prove but will not at this stage.
A further issue is the complete failure to properly apply grace
and consideration periods, despite clear evidence.
I provided bank transaction evidence showing payment was made
during the stay. ParkingEye’s Popla disclosure then included a
“whitelist” record (compiled in a Word document) which matched
my transaction time and showed a two-hour authorised parking
period. Despite this, neither ParkingEye nor POPLA addressed the
practical reality that time is required to return to the vehicle
after the paid period ends. The assessment treated ANPR
timestamps as absolute, without accounting for the mandatory
exit grace period or the time between leaving the vehicle,
paying, and returning.
In effect, evidence was acknowledged but not applied.
The whitelist record was not disputed, yet it was never
reconciled with enforcement data showing “Paid Duration: 00:00”.
This contradiction was simply ignored rather than tested, and
the charge upheld regardless. That failure to reconcile the
operator’s own records is at the heart of the dispute.
What’s been most frustrating is discovering that every official
complaints route seems to stop short of addressing the actual
problem.
I’ve raised this with POPLA, the BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards
and the ICO. Each body looks only at its own narrow remit, and
none will engage with the core issue: contradictory evidence and
unclear allegations being relied upon to pursue keeper
liability. POPLA won’t test conflicting data, the BPA won’t
intervene in individual cases, the DVLA focuses only on whether
data could be requested at the time, and Trading Standards treat
complaints as intelligence rather than disputes. The result is
an endless loop where everyone acknowledges the complaint but no
one resolves the inconsistency that caused it in the first
place.
This leaves court as the only forum where evidence is actually
tested and contradictions must be explained.
That’s not because the charge is strong, but because the
oversight framework doesn’t deal with factual disputes — it just
processes them. I’m sharing this so others understand that
exhausting complaints routes doesn’t necessarily mean the issue
lacks merit; it often just means you’ve reached the limit of
what those bodies are designed to do.
Any legally-grounded views welcome.
#Post#: 107057--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 23, 2026, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The contradictory records do appear to create a fair amount of
doubt, which ought to work in your favour.
As for the alternative allegations, you could make the argument
that they have failed to comply with 9(c) of PoFA and therefore
you can't be liable as keeper.
For a bit of a sense check as to what's actually happened - how
long did the driver pay for, and how long was the vehicle
recorded on site by ParkingEye's systems?
#Post#: 107084--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: ixxy
Date: January 23, 2026, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Could do with seeing both sides of the original PCN.
Regarding the grace period I don't think you understand how that
works in this case the grace period was a minimum of 10 minutes,
if the driver paid for 2 hours your total allowed time on site
would be 2hrs 10 mins, if the driver overstayed that they'd get
a PCN. Using the ANPR entry and exit times is normal and not
usually an arguable point.
If the PCN was POFA complaint (Parkingeye's normally are despite
some arguments on here) whether you were driving or not is a
relatively moot point as they can hold the keepper liable.
#Post#: 107085--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 23, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> If the PCN was POFA complaint (Parkingeye's normally are
despite some arguments on here) whether you were driving or not
is a relatively moot point as they can hold the keepper liable.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that rather depends on the point I raised above. I'm not
sure I'd agree they have described "the circumstances in which
the requirement to pay [the parking charges] arose" if they have
provided two different alleged reasons.
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> (Parkingeye's normally are despite some arguments on here)
--- End Quote ---
Whilst I do take the view that most judges would probably rule
that ParkingEye's standard wording is PoFA compliant, please
remember not to state things as if they are fact when they are
open for interpretation (unless you are aware of any persuasive
or binding rulings on the particular point).
#Post#: 107092--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 23, 2026, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us the original PCN showing both sides but redacting only
personal info. Leave all dates showing.
#Post#: 108330--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: greenwedge
Date: February 1, 2026, 8:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML [img]http://file:///C:/Users/NNB0037/OneDrive%20-%20EDF/Desktop/pcn.pdf[/img]
#Post#: 108331--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory records,
POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: greenwedge
Date: February 1, 2026, 8:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=30
HTML height=30]http://file:///C:/Users/NNB0037/OneDrive%20-%20EDF/Desktop/pcn.pdf[/img]
#Post#: 108332--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye PCN – unclear allegation, contradictory
records, POPLA assumed I was the driver
DIR By: greenwedge
Date: February 1, 2026, 9:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t the one driving my car that day, but I now have
all the timings from ParkingEye’s own records. According
to their ANPR cameras, the vehicle drove into the car park at
14:09:38 and left at 16:26:41. That adds up to 2 hours 17
minutes on site, but that’s just from camera-to-camera
— it doesn’t show how long the vehicle was actually
parked, only the time it was physically inside the boundary.
The person who was driving paid for parking shortly after
arriving, and ParkingEye’s whitelist confirms this. Their
system shows a two‑hour parking session was authorised
from 14:14 to 16:14. So the few minutes between entry and
payment — roughly 4 minutes and 22 seconds — was
simply the driver finding a bay, reading the signs, walking to
the machine and making the payment. The BPA calls this the
“consideration period.” It’s a protected
allowance that must be given to every driver so they can decide
whether to stay, and it has no fixed limit — it just has
to be reasonable. In this case, the driver’s
arrival-to-payment time was completely normal.
After the paid parking session ended at 16:14, the BPA/IPC
Single Code requires a mandatory 10‑minute grace period
before any parking charge can be issued. That means the vehicle
was allowed to leave anytime up to 16:24 without penalty. The
actual exit was recorded at 16:26:41, which is only 2 minutes
and 41 seconds after the grace period — a tiny delay that
could easily be caused by queues, pedestrians or slow traffic
around a holiday park. That’s not evidence of overstaying
the whole 2 hours and 17 minutes; it’s a normal departure
delay.
,
To make things even more confusing, the SAR disclosure from
ParkingEye included contradictory internal data — one part
shows the proper authorised period of 14:14 to 16:14, but
another part claims “Paid Duration: 00:00 / Allowed
Duration: 0h 0m.” That contradiction doesn’t match
their own whitelist and raises questions about their record
accuracy.
So in reality, the timeline looks like this:
14:09:38 — Vehicle enters the site (ANPR)
14:14 — Paid session begins (confirmed whitelist)
14:14 → 16:14 — Paid 2‑hour authorised period
16:14 → 16:24 — Mandatory 10‑minute BPA grace
period
16:26:41 — Vehicle leaves (2m41s after grace) no grace
applied during the appeals
wording on the NTK shows the following
PARKING CHARGE INFORMATION Ltr01-217
On the 14 August 2025 vehicle ........ entered the Ruda Holiday
Park - Croyde Bay Pay & Display car park at 14:09:38
and departed at 16:26:41 on 14 August 2025.
The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and
throughout the car park, states that this is private land and
that the car park is managed by Parkingeye Ltd. In addition the
signage states that, as a paid parking car park, a Parking
Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the
appropriate tariff payment. The signage also contains further
terms and
conditions associated with this car park by which those who park
in the car park agree to be bound.
By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by
remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage,
the Parking Charge is now payable to Parkingeye Ltd (as
the Creditor).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1