Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 10th Feb 18, 9:45 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 1Thanks
    ParkingEye(Lie?) and Town Quay Southampton
    • #1
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:45 PM
    ParkingEye(Lie?) and Town Quay Southampton 10th Feb 18 at 9:45 PM
    Good evening all,

    I'm just writing hoping for some advice, I'm hoping this is as clear cut as I think but maybe you guys can give me some pointers on things I may have missed.

    So the scenario:
    Driver went into Town Quay car park in Southampton to pick someone up from their ferry, however they had missed the original ferry so driver waiting around for a half hour for the next ferry to come in. Today (10 days after the incident) we recieved a letter from ParkingEye stating a fine of £100 is due for "either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted" It does go on to mention about POFA 2012, however from this post I found from September 2016 which is at the exact same car park (hxxp:// it seems that POFA does not apply to this specific car park, or atleast it didn't then.

    I haven't yet begun any communication with them but have seen the advice about not informing them who the driver was. Am I correct in assuming I just need to use the default appeals form from the NEWBIE thread (should I mention how this car park is not deemed as relevant land by POPLA and quote the case number provided in the above linked thread?) await their rejection letter, contact POPLA with the appeal reasoning being not relevant land and hope for the best?

    I'll admit as this is the first parking fine we have received we don't fully understand all the legal jargon around the POFA bit or the byelaws which I believe are what affects POFA 2012

    I'll grab a copy of the draft and adjust it accordingly (I think its pretty read to go though isn't it?) with any adjustments you suggest before I email them. Do we still need to obtain pictures etc as proof? as this car park is across the solent from us (we live on the Isle of Wight) and with the price of the ferry these days it'll cost us the price of the fine to even get there!!

    Thanks in advance and I hope I have read thoroughly through what we need to do (as I don't want to needlessly waste your time!)

Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    • 40,938 Posts
    • 81,719 Thanks
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    Send the initial appeal using the NEWBIES template exactly as it is. Unless you know for sure that this is not relevant land, then I wouldn't use that.

    Don't use something you don't understand as you could end up digging a hole for yourself.

    However, you have time, I think, to research this and confirm whether on not the land is relevant. So, do your research before sending the keeper appeal, but don't miss the appeal deadline.

    Hopefully you will tell the driver, if you know who it is, not to park somewhere they should not, as that is the reason why these parking scammers exist.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    • #3
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    Unless you know for sure that this is not relevant land, then I wouldn't use that.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Whilst I don't personally the link stated is from a reply from POPLA in reference to that car park where the POPLA assessor states " In his grounds for appeal, the appellant has stated that the land on which the car park is situated is not 'relevant land'. This is defined by PoFA 2012 under paragraph 3(1)(c) as any land other than 'land..on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control'. From the evidence provided to POPLA, I can only conclude that the car park is indeed on land under statutory control and cannot be considered 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA 2012. As the site is not located on 'relevant land', the operator is unable to rely on PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal."

    However, unfortunately, I cannot find what evidence was submitted to provoke that kind of response. Have done some more research since your reply and Edna Basher posted in another thread this post hxxp:// with a map to the area showing the port's boundary (I couldn't link directly to the map) to which the author of the thread posted a reply showing where he was parked (the vehicle was in pretty much the same place, still well within the port boundary)
    Last edited by Labinopper; 10-02-2018 at 10:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • 53,942 Posts
    • 67,629 Thanks
    • #4
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    Sounds reasonable to add a sentence saying you know that the location has previously been found as fact by POPLA, to be ''not relevant land'' and covered by Port Byelaws. As such, you cannot b held liable as keeper, and the driver will not be named so PE should not waste your time with the usual begging letter asking who was driving.

    May as well be robust, PE are bullies. I hate bullies. They know who they are.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    • 16,638 Posts
    • 26,004 Thanks
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    It was also for this location where another POPLA Assessor found for PE on the basis that while the bylaws listed a range of 'vehicles' (including 'any machinery on wheels') that as the term 'car' was not specifically included, then the bylaws didn't apply and PoFA did.

    There are also further links to PePiPoo in the thread below to have a read through, to give you a fuller picture about this location.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    • 8,140 Posts
    • 7,415 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    • #6
    • 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    Is it, or isn't it?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • carl4954
    • By carl4954 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    • #7
    • 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    Council owned ''not relevant land''
    • #7
    • 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    Hi Labinopper.
    This tact may prove helpful to a number of people.

    I went down a similar road with POPLA, when I received a PCN in Meridan Centre, Havant in Jan18 First take the full time allowance before making your appeal, you only get the one shot.
    ParkingEye are well practised in their submission, which they present after you have shown your cards to POPLA. You need to think like a solicitor as both groups are well practised in the appeals procedure so you need to provide proof with your statement.

    Subsequently to my first appeal and during the second phase of the POPLA process I made a second refused submission based on the ''not relevant land''. 10 days after my failed appeal I still have not received a further demand for payment of the original PE PCN so I think my second submission has legs.
    I stumbled onto some interesting facts and letters from the Department for Transport.
    In my second submission I went after the Landowner in the PE T&C's. I found out that the Landowner or Freeholder is in fact a council and that using contract law, its not legal or illegal, but is in contravention of DfT guidance that councils should use the correct legislation as laid down by parliament.
    I found that the information on council owned freehold can be found on the councils website, usually under a search for 'Asset'. I suggest you go to the Borough and County Councils websites. If that does not yield results go for a Freedom of Information Act request, it free. It took 24hrs to get a reply from the website I used from making the requests. Again go after both councils.
    I have added below the body of my second submission with reference to Havant Borough Council, so you will need to adjust it to suit your case. You may find it helpful. Remember to list your sources of information or provide copies with your appeal.
    By the way the definitions in italics are from a widely used legal dictionary.

    I submit that the processes in this matter, PTL:###### - POPLA Verification Code: ######
    contravene the of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Department for Transport guidance to Civil Enforcement Areas and should cease and that my appeal be upheld forthwith.

    My submission
    RTRA - Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
    TMA - Traffic Management Act 2004
    DfT - Department for Transport
    POFA - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    POPLA – Parking on Private Land Appeals
    Landlord - A lessor of real property; the owner or possessor of an estate in land or a rental property,
    who, in an exchange for rent, leases it to another individual known as the tenant.
    Landowner - possessor, estate owner, freeholder, holder of legal title, landed proprietor, landlord, owner of an estate in land, owner of land, owner of real estate, owner of real property, owner of the fee, property holder, property owner, proprietor, real property holder, real property owner, titleholder
    Freehold - A life estate, an interest in land the duration of which is restricted to the life or lives of a
    particular person or persons holding it, or an estate in fee, an interest in property that is unconditional
    and represents the broadest ownership interest recognized by law.
    HBC - Havant Borough Council – Public Body
    ALMO – Arm Length Management Organisation
    Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or
    misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is
    intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
    Extorsion - Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
    CEA - Civil Enforcement Areas
    CEO - Civil Enforcement Officer
    PE – ParkingEye – Private Car Parking Operator/Enforcement
    T&C’s – Terms and Conditions
    ParkingEye - Case
    Vehicle ###### failed to meet the posted T&C’s at the Meridian Centre Car Park, Havant and so
    the vehicle is subject to a civil charge for a Parking Charge.
    POPLA appeal

    I request the following evidence from ParkingEye
    who the Landlord is for the Meridian Centre Car Park
    who their Client is for the Meridian Centre Car Park

    Parking Eye terms and conditions.
    In the posted T&C’s PE state:- provide a picture of the biggest sign you can find with the T&C's on.

    ParkingEye Ltd (Company No:5134454) is authorised by the Landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf, and have been so operating on this site since December 2011

    With some research within the HBC web site I am able to prove, with certainty, that the Landlord/Landowner/Freehold is Havant Borough Council, by their own admission in their document -
    Car Parking: Havant Town Centre
    Page 12
    This multi-storey car park is operated under long leasehold by the company managing the Meridian
    Centre although the Council owns the freehold of the land.

    HBC also admit to using a ALMO to manage the site which is in direct conflict with the RTRA & TMA and guidance by the DfT.

    The Meridian Centre Car Parking is not ‘private land used for parking’ and so does not falls under the scope of POFA Schedule 4. As per guidance by the DfT .PE have no right to operate on ‘public land’. Ergo they have no right to use POFA Schedule 4. to
    pursue vehicles for civil ‘Parking Charges’ as it has been since December 2011.
    HBC became and ‘Agent’ of Hampshire County Council in 2008 to operate a CEA within the bounds of HBC area. At that time HBC must have been or made aware of this contravention of RTRA & TMA.
    HBC Parking Policy states: -
    Enforce parking regulations effectively and introduce measures to assist, such as residents’ parking and additional opportunities likely to emerge from the Traffic Management Act and other national initiatives.
    HBC Parking Policy is freely available on the HBC web site

    The Meridian Centre Car Parking is not ‘private land used for parking’ both Havant Borough Council and PE are acting against the will of Parliament, Government policy and the expectations of local electorates and in contravention of RTRA, the TMA 2004, DfT guidance and HBC own Parking Policy with regards to this car park.
    In 2014 the all local authorities in England operating CEA received a letter from the DfT in regard to using ALMO.
    The then Transport Minister Robert Goodwill points out that they must not attempt to enforce off street parking using contract law rather than under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This letter came about due to a challenge to the actions of Westminster Council
    The warning was made in a letter sent by the then Transport Minister Robert Goodwill.
    By their own admission, PE terms and conditions clearly states PE agreement is with the Landowner, in this instance HBC. PE have, with the authorisation of the Landowner, HBC, systematically misused/misrepresented POFA Schedule 4. to obtain the registered keepers details and therefore fraudulently pursue the registered keeper to extort a fee for a parking charge of the good people who have used this publicly
    owned parking structure since December 2011
    I submit that the processes in this matter, PTL:##### - POPLA Verification Code: #####
    contravene the of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Department for Transport guidance to Civil Enforcement Areas and should cease and that my appeal be upheld forthwith.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,263Posts Today

8,653Users online

Martin's Twitter