DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107705--------------------------------------------------
PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: Mars
Date: January 28, 2026, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a PCN at the beginning of the month. As I was not the
driver at the time, I appealed, stating that I did not know who
the driver was and that I am unwilling to name them. They have
since sent the attached reply. Any advice on how to proceed from
here would be appreciated.
HTML https://imgbox.com/lOD0cCGc
HTML https://imgbox.com/lOD0cCGc
HTML https://imgbox.com/dwjlTHnb
HTML https://imgbox.com/dwjlTHnb
HTML https://imgbox.com/qoX3NHZM
HTML https://imgbox.com/qoX3NHZM
#Post#: 107723--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: Dave65
Date: January 28, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It looks like they fishing for the drivers ID.
Was this an out of store hours visit?
Can you post up photos of any signage.?
#Post#: 107725--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 28, 2026, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So the PCN is not PoFA compliant and omits the mandatory wording
required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), namely; an
invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
We can come up with a further email replay to PE if you want?
#Post#: 107762--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: Mars
Date: January 28, 2026, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it would be great if you could help with a reply. I was
just going to ignore their response, but would it be better to
send a reply?
#Post#: 107817--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 29, 2026, 3:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your letter dated 27th January 2026.
I have duly noted its contents.
In previous correspondence I have already stated that I am the
vehicle keeper and that I would not be nominating a driver as
there is no legal requirement to do this - that firmly remains
the case.
In your latest letter you appear to claim the ability to move
liability from the unknown driver onto the keeper through the
use of PoFA - I accept that this can be done but only when the
relevant requirements of PoFA are satisfied by the parking
operator.
Ironically, you actually specify this yourself in your own
boilerplate response where you state that application of PoFA
only occurs 'subject to our complying with the applicable
conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.'
In this instance, your PCN issued via a postal Notice to Keeper
does not 'comply with the applicable conditions' set out under
schedule 4 of the Act.
In particular, the requirements of paragraph 9(2)(e) are not met
- para. 9(2)(e) requires specific mandatory wording immediately
followed by a two limbed invitation to the vehicle keeper - the
wording of the two limbs is again regarded as mandatory wording
and the two limbs should be linked together with the conjunction
'or' which then sets out a legal choice for the keeper to make.
In the Parking Eye issued PCN the mandatory 'invitation to the
keeper' element is missing - para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii)
set out the requirements of each limb - you will see that your
PCN contains no such invitation to the keeper 'to pay the unpaid
parking charges' - the first limb is not stated on the PCN
(neither is the required word 'or') and, as a result, the legal
choice is never presented to the keeper in line with the
requirements of schedule 4 - this is fatal to PE's reliance on
PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
In order to be compliant with para 9(2)(e) the following wording
must be present in a single paragraph or sentence;
Parking Eye (the Creditor) does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is now invited to pay the unpaid parking charges OR
if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the
creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
I accept that some elements of para 9(2)(e) are present in your
PCN (in a mixed up manner) but, unfortunately, para. 9(2)(e)(i)
is clearly not present and as a result the mandatory legal
choice is never presented.
The wording of schedule 4 is clear; total compliance is needed
with para. 9(2) in order for the PCN to be regarded as meeting
the legal requirements of the schedule.
I am the vehicle keeper and I maintain that I am not liable and
that PoFA cannot be used, in this particular instance, to
transfer liability to me.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
#Post#: 107818--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 29, 2026, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When it gets to POPLA I'd lump in failure to specify the
relevant land too - "Home Bargains, County Road" is rather
vague; no town, no postcode...
#Post#: 107822--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 29, 2026, 3:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
But at this stage Parking Eye appears to be happy to discuss
these issues on what seems like a 'pre-appeal basis'.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I suspect that they will 'disengage' at this point and simply
say that 'our PCN is complaint' or perhaps something along the
(totally subjective) lines of 'broadly compliant' in an effort
to imply that total compliance is not actually required.
Odd that PE and Euro Car Parks are now both sending out clearly
non-PoFA compliant PCNs with such muddled wording and clear
errors - I wonder if this all comes back to one person or one
organisation who is advising these firms.
Collectively this could amount to 10s of thousands of non
compliant PCNs.
#Post#: 107824--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 29, 2026, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Most people pay up. A small % appeal. A smaller % appeal on
'technical' grounds like PoFA compliance. An even smaller % roll
the dice at court. I'm not currently aware of any cases that
have gone to a court hearing relying solely on the "9(2)(e)"
point. If they did, I imagine 'judge bingo' would come into
play. I imagine if PE found themselves losing a couple of cases
on this point they'd probably change the wording.
#Post#: 107903--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: Mars
Date: January 29, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can’t thank you enough for all the help and advice, especially
with writing that amazing reply. I’ve already sent it to them
and will update here once I hear back.
#Post#: 109575--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Appeal help
DIR By: Mars
Date: February 12, 2026, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
so for anyone still following they just sent this latest reply
which seams to completely ignore everything from the latest
appeal letter I sent in.
Looking at the popla site now and how to move forward but I
would appreciate any advice you can give.
HTML https://imgbox.com/x6ScMPg9
HTML https://imgbox.com/x6ScMPg9
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page