ParkingEye POFA 2012 defence

Solarsquirrel132

Hi,

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere and I just haven't been able to find it - I promise I looked hard!

We've received a Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye - standard Parkingeye format that there are images of elsewhere on this forum. We paid for parking at the car park in question. The PCN states the time we were in the car park and the arrival and departure times. It does not state why the charge has been issued (i.e. lack of payment or underpayment). There is simply a standard statement on the reverse of the letter that states: “By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted…”.

I've spent a lot of time looking into this and, my understanding (limited, I'll admit) is that, under POFA 2012, the Notice to Keeper must say specifically what the charge has been issued for. This does not. That statement is descriptive of why Parking Charge Notices are issued. But the Notice does not specify the circumstances in which this specific Notice has been issued.

Given that it is standard wording though and they issue thousands of these, I'm presuming that this is not an adequate defence on its own because others would have used this successfully by now. If it's not an adequate defence, I'd appreciate someone explaining why!

Intending to start an appeal, I logged in to Parkingeye's portal. I was careful not to choose anything that would admit liability as the driver (which I wasn't, incidentally). When I logged in, it showed me more details about the charge. In there, it says that the vehicle stayed for 1 hour 19 minutes and the paid duration was 1 hour. It also says how much was paid for that hour. But the amount stated is incorrect and we have a bank statement showing the amount that was actually paid.

So my questions are these: Is it worth trying the POFA 2012 non-compliance defence on the basis of the NTK not specifying the contravention? Or have others tried this and it failed for whatever reason? Second, should I instead challenge on the basis of their information being incorrect in the online portal? I.e. stating a lower amount paid than was actually paid?

I have tried emailing the landowner and haven't received a reply. It is a social club, which wasn't where we were visiting when we parked.

I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth trying to appeal or not.

Car1980

You are correct. A menu of possible reasons is not compliant.

But there's not much you can do until a court claim. Popla is not fit for purpose and would reject. If your arms fell off and you couldn't drive out they would still reject in 2026.

If you eventually get a claim via DCB Legal it doesn't matter as it'll be discontinued.

Even in-house claims are often discontinued nowadays (Parking Eye aren't the obstinate judge-botherers they used to be under Capita). But keep your defence and evidence to hand for the court claim. Which is what you want as it's the only arbitration available now.

Coupon-mad

Which site was this at?

Any disabled people in the car?