ParkingEye charge - barrier controlled car park was open

johnmitch38

I received a ParkingEye charge in relation to my vehicle being parked in a private car park. The private car park is barrier controlled but on this occasion, the barrier was open all day (possibly broken) so therefore the car park was accessible.
I replied to ParkingEye stating that I would not be confirming who the driver was (I didn't deny it was me as their reply states) and explained the situation regarding the barrier being raised all day.
I have now received the below from ParkingEye. They incorrectly state that I stated that I was not the driver of the vehicle and they also have not acknowledged anything in relation to the barrier being open:-

Dear Sir / Madam, Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 03 December 2024 at 17:34, at Asda House - David Street, Leeds car park. 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 provided. 

Please can ay provide any advice. 

Mark_d

It is completely irrelevant that the barrier was open.  Your car was parked on private property.  Either you admit to being the driver and pay the fine as the driver, or you will have to pay the fine as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

LDast

No idea what you actually said in your appeal but you could respond with the following as PE do not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i):

Subject: Response to PCN No. [Insert PCN Number]

Dear ParkingEye,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated [insert date] in response to my appeal regarding PCN No. [PCN Number]. I write to reiterate my position as the registered keeper of the vehicle and to address your request for further information.

As I have already stated, I am under no legal obligation to provide the driver's identity, and I decline to do so.

Your response references paragraph 9(2)(b) and paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, I must stress that for you to rely on these provisions to claim keeper liability, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) must fully comply with all other requirements of PoFA, which I outlined below.

Specifically:

1. Failure to Include an Invitation to Pay (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)):
   Your NtK fails to include a clear and unambiguous invitation for the keeper to pay the parking charge, as required under PoFA. This is a critical omission that renders the NtK non-compliant.

2. Inadequate Signage (Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)):
   Your signage does not meet the standards required under PoFA, or the BPA code of practice. Without sufficient signage to communicate terms to the driver, your claim against the registered keeper is invalid.

3. Failure to Explain How the Parking Charge Was Brought to the Driver’s Attention (Paragraph 9(2)(c)):
   Your NtK does not provide sufficient detail about how the terms and conditions of parking were made clear to the driver, particularly given the issues with signage.

4. Strict Compliance is Mandatory:
   PoFA requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements. Partial compliance is insufficient to establish liability on the part of the registered keeper.

Given the above points, I maintain that ParkingEye has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for payment of this Parking Charge Notice.

I also remind you of your obligation to either accept my appeal or provide me with a POPLA verification code to escalate this matter to independent adjudication. Your letter does not addressed the substantive points I raised regarding your failure to comply with PoFA and I expect a substantive response within the 28-day hold period you referenced.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN or issue a POPLA code, I will escalate this matter further, including complaints to the British Parking Association (BPA) and other relevant authorities.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper

Gr1pr

They are phishing for drivers details,  do not respond 

It doesn't look like your vehicle should have been there,  regardless of any barriers or not

Did the NTK PCN letter comply with POFA   ? It's definitely NOT a fine,  just an invoice 

Obtain pictures of the signage,  to check if any parking contract was offered or not 

Coupon-mad

Mark_d said:

It is completely irrelevant that the barrier was open.  Your car was parked on private property.  Either you admit to being the driver and pay the fine as the driver, or you will have to pay the fine as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

This reply is wrong and completely misleading.

This is an invoice, not a fine.

They do not have to say who was driving.

They do not "have to pay" anything.

It just isn't fair nor within the site's moneysaving ethos to post the above to a new poster who might believe what you've said.