Yet another scumbag parking eye letter - Fox House, Derby - POPLA Stage

Coupon-mad

It's not strange. Normal. Search the forum for it rather than post about this slight delay.

  

usernamenotfound

Ah yes, apologies Coupon-mad - Sage of Parking Tickets & Fines. 
I have found a similar thread - Parking Eye Appeal - Response from Parking Fine
I will sit it out and wait for the POPLA.
In the meantime, I am waiting to hear back from "@Carters Surveyors" regarding my response to them, and still had no luck with "@Wavensmere Homes", I've just emailed them asking for Gary Moore's contact details but I have a feeling they will just ignore like before.

usernamenotfound

The case has moved to POPLA stage now. I've edited the title to suit.
I will post my POPLA draft on here before submitting, so others can see/copy/improve/correct as they wish.
As usual, I'd like to thank the community for all their advice and support, this is by far the best forum for combatting PCNs.

usernamenotfound

Hi All, Please see my final draft for POPLA.

I will be submitting this tomorrow, as always let me know any comments.

Thanks!

Dear POPLA,
Regarding POPLA CODE: 6063635447
On 3 November 2025, Parkingeye issued a parking charge notice to the driver of vehicle ---- --- with the following reason: "By not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking charge is now payable to Parkingeye Ltd (as the creditor)"

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The “signs” in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2) Parkingeye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.
3) The charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was “plainly engaged” in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

1) The “signs” in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having returned to review the site, I am of the view that there is no evident signage on the site. These photos were taken on 7 November 2025, the vehicle was parked by the driver on parking space 8:

(8x photos showing the parking space and surrounding area)

Therefore there was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, the site is unsigned and therefore no full terms are displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering – nor is it visible at the entrance, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

I submit the following judgment which is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver’s perspective, and from where the car was parked. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2) Parkingeye Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Parkingeye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Parkingeye Ltd be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists. Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) The charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was “plainly engaged” in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other 'legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question'. The true test was held to be 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation'.

There can be no legitimate interest in punishing authorised loading/unloading, under the excuse of a 'parking' scheme where ostensibly - and as far as the landowner is concerned - the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the leaseholders/landholders/tenants. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' to issue a parking penalty for permitted unloading/loading by a driver who has legitimate business and rights to do so.

These rights supersede any signs, which are of no consequence except to deter rogue unwanted drivers from leaving their vehicles when they have no business on site. This is true of any residential or business car park where tenants/leaseholders (who may be individuals or businesses) enjoy legal 'rights of way' which extend to drivers permitted to load/unload. A third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement or a lease, nor disregard easements and rights of way that prevail in such car parks (residential or industrial).

This question was tested recently in an Appeal case in June 2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA*). Please note this is an Appeal case, decided by a Senior Circuit Judge and as such, its findings on the definition of 'parking as opposed to loading' and the findings on leaseholder/permitted visitor/loading/delivering rights of way superseding parking signs, are persuasive on the lower courts.

Beavis did not deal with any of these matters - nor was it relevant to a 'permit' car park - but the following case and transcript I have provided, is relevant and the Judge even states that Beavis DOES NOT APPLY to this type of car park:

Appeal case at Oxford County Court, 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016:

Sitting in Oxford County Court, Judge Charles Harris QC, found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, rather than use her own parking space. After an initial appeal to the Independent Parking Committee was rejected, Home Guard Services sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitors arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the existing lease which also extended to certain rights for permitted visitors when loading/unloading. The Judge found that Laura Jopson and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) enjoy a right of way to the block’s entrance and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. Home Guard Services were required to pay £2,000 towards the defendant's costs.

I also rely upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA**).

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''

4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have Parkingeye Ltd provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

“Understanding keeper liability:

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Parkingeye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Parkingeye Ltd.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards.

Coupon-mad

usernamenotfound said:

The case has moved to POPLA stage now. I've edited the title to suit.
I will post my POPLA draft on here 

Overall I don't know what you are trying to achieve because - unless this is a non-POFA NTK - this appeal very very likely won't win at POPLA. The appeals service is a farce run on behalf of (and paid by) the parking industry.

I wouldn't bother. Ignore them instead but I see you are determined to waste their time and to give POPLA a whirl, so:

1.  Be aware you will lose. We strongly advise NO POPLA. It doesn't help. The templates will not work against ParkingEye (are you sure it's ParkingEye? They don't tend to run residential car parks, so this is surprising).

2.  If you insist in wasting time and losing at POPLA: don't put the word 'signs' in inverted commas. It reads oddly.

3.  You need a first point explaining what your dispute is actually about. What went wrong, why were you there, why you thought you were authorised, and you will need plenty of images of a lack of signs (which I don't think you'll find is the case if it's ParkingEye because they do have signage in their sites). If you want to win on signage you'll need masses of evidence pictures of areas with no signage the site and also a photo of the entrance showing no 'P' entrance sign. But I'm telling you now, there was one!

4.  Your appeal is a couple of years out of date because the BPA CoP hasn't had that para 7 about landowner authority since 2024. It's para 14 now. Different wording. Search the forum or Google it.

5.   Remove para 3 completely. A hopeless, out of date point to raise. POPLA will deflect that easily by citing Beavis.

6.  Frankly, you have no POPLA-winning point that I can see and that is a losing appeal. I don't know why you have added that final point and are trying to hide who was driving because that isn't relevant unless the NTK is non-POFA worded (compare it to the Golden Ticket picture linked in the third post of the NEWBIES thread). The NTK is most likely POFA compliant so that point is misguided.

I say again: honestly, POPLA will not come to your rescue so just don't bother. Let it slide. Defending a court claim is ten times easier than POPLA and far more likely to succeed.

ChirpyChicken

Less is more

usernamenotfound

Would it not be prudent to remove "POST 3 SECOND STAGE APPEAL - POPLA OR IAS" from the Newbies thread if POPLA is no longer viable? 
Here are the photos I have taken. No signage at all.

usernamenotfound

Also, when did this change? 
I have submitted 2 or 3 POPLA appeals in the past (the latest being late 2024) and all of them won at this stage, meaning I have never ventured past POPLA stage. So it comes as a bit surprising that POPLA has turned heads all of a sudden. 
Granted, the POPLAs I submitted were not vs Parkingeye, but I was not aware that it would be any different. 
(Just did a quick search of my emails - one is PPS, the other Britannia Parking)

usernamenotfound

I would also add that the driver (not me) was visiting and dropping off some medicines, as the resident was unable to leave their flat and asked that they deliver it to the door. The total time in carpark captured by ANPR is 29 minutes. Yes, they did stay for a quick chat to see if he was doing ok but that was all.

Coupon-mad

POPLA has not turned heads. I didn't say it had; it's always been very hit and miss and was always non -independent.

It is certainly viable in cases with a winning point, such as non-POFA worded NTKs and sites with graffiti on the signage or a hopeless lack of signs.

Now I have seen your images, hmmm... maybe you have a point about lack of signs!

You could win if you add the metadata to each and every photo or screenshot them all, so that the Assessor can see the dates, otherwise the evidence is meaningless.

Also remove the points I said to remove.

I am a bit gobsmacked. Are you sure this is ParkingEye? That doesn't look like they are there. I cannot see any contract!

Please get a photo of the entrance sign.

Show us both sides of the NTK.