Confusing response to an appeal based mainly on 'non-relevant land' (port)

lexiLD

We got a PCN from Southampton Town Quay car park from Parking Eye Ltd. I am the keeper of the vehicle, but wasn't the driver and wasn't present. 

I appealed the PCN on a few points but the main one being this isn't "relevant land" so I they can't hold me liable and I have no obligation to name the driver - it's part of Southampton Harbour, owned by ABP. Map and byelaws are https://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Soton Byelaws.pdf

The reply I got completely ignores this and includes the following. I find this misleading and confusing and don't really know what I'm supposed to do next. Does anyone else know?

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.



Am I right in thinking they are being deliberately misleading and I should just wait for the 'POPLA code' to appeal based on this being non-relegvant land? Is there anything else I'm missing from the legalese?

Thanks for any guidance!

Gr1pr

These private parking companies thrive on obfuscation 

Ignore them and wait for the decision,  which will contain a cancellation or a Popla 

Meanwhile,  read some of the explanation on here regarding non relevant land,  like airports, railway, ports and many other bylaws or council owned areas,  especially parks, water companies etc

Car1980

There is no genuine in-house appeals process. This is the "try and intimidate them into telling us who the driver is" template.

Yes, wait for the Popla code.