Quote:I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I dispute your parking charge.

The driver has not been identified and no assumptions may be made in that regard.

The vehicle was present while a genuine customer of Lidl Thornton Heath was using the store. A purchase was made and the receipt has been retained. The time on site was extended because of a problem at the checkout involving an item that was not recognised properly and which staff had to resolve.

In the circumstances, this charge is unreasonable and should be cancelled. The driver was a legitimate customer and any brief overstay was directly connected with the shopping visit and delays within the store.

Please also note that I am seeking cancellation via your principal. If you refuse this appeal, then please provide the rejection together with the POPLA code.

No further detail will be provided at this stage and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

(04-07-2026, 05:27 PM)b789 Wrote: Hi @sinaloa. It is the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that also needs to be seen. ParkingEye often look compliant at first glance, but the wording on the reverse still needs checking carefully because that is where they usually either get PoFA right or fail on one of the mandatory elements. If the driver has not been identified, that matters. Until the full notice has been checked front and back, nobody should assume that keeper liability has actually been established.

The first thing to do is not to rush into an appeal to ParkingEye. The first port of call is always the landowner or the principal that has contracted ParkingEye. Where this is a car park serving Lidl and apparently only Lidl, the strongest practical step at this stage is to go straight to Lidl and push for cancellation as a genuine customer. The receipt is important because it proves patronage and supports the explanation that the overstay arose during the shopping visit itself, not because the driver wandered off site or misused the car park.

Do not waste time with junior staff. If dealing with Lidl in person, ask for the store manager or the most senior manager on duty and make clear that this needs escalating as a customer service complaint with a request for immediate cancellation of the Parking Charge. The point is simple enough: the driver was a genuine customer, made a purchase, retained the receipt, and the overstay was caused by a checkout issue involving an item that would not scan properly and had to be sorted out by staff. That is not abuse of the site. It is exactly the sort of situation Lidl should be stepping in to resolve.

ParkingEye are not known for exercising common sense merely because a receipt exists, but Lidl can often get these cancelled if the matter is pushed firmly enough at store level. So the best sequence is to complain to Lidl first and do that straight away. However, do not let that cause the appeal deadline to be missed. If Lidl refuse to help or simply fail to get back to you in time, then an initial appeal should be submitted to ParkingEye close to the deadline, not immediately. On the dates you have given, the 28 day appeal period would expire on Wednesday 29 April 2026, so that is the date to work back from.

In the meantime, get clear photographs or scans of both sides of the NtK and post them up with personal data and reference number redacted, but leave all dates and wording visible. That will allow a proper PoFA check before anything is sent.

A suitable initial appeal, if needed later, would be along these lines:

Quote:I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I dispute your parking charge.

The driver has not been identified and no assumptions may be made in that regard.

The vehicle was present while a genuine customer of Lidl Thornton Heath was using the store. A purchase was made and the receipt has been retained. The time on site was extended because of a problem at the checkout involving an item that was not recognised properly and which staff had to resolve.

In the circumstances, this charge is unreasonable and should be cancelled. The driver was a legitimate customer and any brief overstay was directly connected with the shopping visit and delays within the store.

Please also note that I am seeking cancellation via your principal. If you refuse this appeal, then please provide the rejection together with the POPLA code.

No further detail will be provided at this stage and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

That is the line you should take for now. Lidl first, ParkingEye second if necessary, and only after the back of the NtK has been checked properly.

(04-11-2026, 11:56 AM)b789 Wrote: As expected, the NtK does not comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), because it does not contain the required invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge. ParkingEye has already lost a county court claim on this exact point.

For now, continue trying to get Lidl to have the PCN cancelled. If that does not succeed before the appeal deadline, submit the appeal I have suggested and we will take it from there.

(04-11-2026, 11:56 AM)b789 Wrote: As expected, the NtK does not comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), because it does not contain the required invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge. ParkingEye has already lost a county court claim on this exact point.

For now, continue trying to get Lidl to have the PCN cancelled. If that does not succeed before the appeal deadline, submit the appeal I have suggested and we will take it from there.