Can I challenge being 1 min over my parking time?

Racky_Roo

Hi all,
Thanks for the earlier advice. I submitted my appeal and have now been asked to provide driver details as I didn't admit I was the driver, as per the forums advice. 
Not sure what my next step should be? Wait it out? I just don't want to have to pay £100 in 28 days
This is the letter from them;

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further

information.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the

breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection

of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking

charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were

not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal

address of the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not

been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we

have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered

keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable

conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you

do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be

obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.

Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the

evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well

be rejected and a POPLA code provide

Gr1pr

Ignore, wait it out, so they have to do the last sentence in their reply 

There is nothing wrong with them phishing for drivers details from gullible Joe public, but there is no legal compulsory requirement to give them those details, so don't, not UNLESS you have extremely important reasons for doing so, but only for your reasons, not their reasons 

Racky_Roo

Gr1pr said:

Ignore, wait it out, so they have to do the last sentence in their reply 

There is nothing wrong with them phishing for drivers details from gullible Joe public, but there is no legal compulsory requirement to give them those details, so don't, not UNLESS you have extremely important reasons for doing so, but only for your reasons, not their reasons 

Ok thank you very much, I thought that was the case but wanted to double check with someone wiser than myself 

LDast

You could reply with the following, for what it's worth:

Dear ParkingEye Appeals Dept.,

I am writing in response to your email in order to advise you that I will not be revealing the identity of the driver as I am under no legal obligation to do so. Your attempt to threaten me, as the keeper of the vehicle, that I may be liable for the charge under PoFA 9(2)(b) would be correct had you complied with ALL the requirements of the Act.

As your NtK does not contain any "invitation", synonym of or similar wording, that invites the keeper to pay the charge, your NtK has failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not enough. 

With the above in mind, please cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code where the failure to FULLY comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA will be detailed for the assessor to adjudicate on.

Yours faithfully,

lexiLD

Hey - I had the same amount of time at the same location. I wasn't the driver but am the keeper. What was your outcome?