03-29-2026, 11:16 AM
@Eryobotrya, it would be useful to see both sides of the NtK, but I do know that it will not be fully PoFA compliant.
At this stage, the correct next step is to submit a short keeper appeal to ParkingEye, without identifying the driver.
The main reason to appeal now is not because ParkingEye are likely to cancel at first stage. They usually do not. The real purpose is to put down the keeper-liability point immediately, preserve the position, and force them to issue a POPLA code if they reject. In parallel, if there is a genuine Equality Act issue arising from disability, that should also be raised now in concise terms.
On the material currently described, the strongest point is the same one that succeeded in ParkingEye v Ghansah (2025) [M4FC56Q6], namely that the NtK does not contain the invitation to the keeper to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). That is a county court win on the point, but it is not binding and not even persuasive authority in the strict sense. It is still useful because it shows ParkingEye have already been beaten on this exact defect.
As for likely progression, the realistic position is if ParkingEye reject, the matter may later be passed to DCB Legal. Where DCB Legal issue a single-PCN claim and a proper defence is filed, discontinuance is usual just before trial fee stage. However, in the possible event that ParkingEye litigate in their own name through their own legal team, the case is more likely to run further and may reach a hearing. So the correct approach is to prepare from the outset on the basis that it could ultimately require a defence.
The initial appeal should therefore be brief and controlled. It should say that the appellant is the registered keeper, that the driver will not be identified, that ParkingEye cannot transfer liability because the NtK does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), that any disability-related circumstances requiring reasonable adjustments must be considered if applicable, and that the charge must be cancelled or a POPLA code issued.
Use this:
Do not embellish it. Do not identify who was driving. Do not give a narrative of what happened unless there is a very clear Equality Act point that positively helps and can be stated without identifying the driver.
After that, the likely sequence is rejection, then POPLA, then useless debt recovery letters, then possibly a Letter of Claim (LoC), then possibly a county court claim. Debt recovery letters can be safely ignored. An LoC must not be ignored. A claim must be defended.
The tactical position for this case at present is straightforward: submit the short keeper appeal now, preserve the PoFA point, reserve Equality Act matters if genuinely engaged, and expect that cancellation at first stage is unlikely.
At this stage, the correct next step is to submit a short keeper appeal to ParkingEye, without identifying the driver.
The main reason to appeal now is not because ParkingEye are likely to cancel at first stage. They usually do not. The real purpose is to put down the keeper-liability point immediately, preserve the position, and force them to issue a POPLA code if they reject. In parallel, if there is a genuine Equality Act issue arising from disability, that should also be raised now in concise terms.
On the material currently described, the strongest point is the same one that succeeded in ParkingEye v Ghansah (2025) [M4FC56Q6], namely that the NtK does not contain the invitation to the keeper to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). That is a county court win on the point, but it is not binding and not even persuasive authority in the strict sense. It is still useful because it shows ParkingEye have already been beaten on this exact defect.
As for likely progression, the realistic position is if ParkingEye reject, the matter may later be passed to DCB Legal. Where DCB Legal issue a single-PCN claim and a proper defence is filed, discontinuance is usual just before trial fee stage. However, in the possible event that ParkingEye litigate in their own name through their own legal team, the case is more likely to run further and may reach a hearing. So the correct approach is to prepare from the outset on the basis that it could ultimately require a defence.
The initial appeal should therefore be brief and controlled. It should say that the appellant is the registered keeper, that the driver will not be identified, that ParkingEye cannot transfer liability because the NtK does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), that any disability-related circumstances requiring reasonable adjustments must be considered if applicable, and that the charge must be cancelled or a POPLA code issued.
Use this:
Quote:PCN Ref: [pcn ref]
Vehicle VRM [VRM]
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.
You cannot hold me liable as keeper because your Notice to Keeper does not satisfy the mandatory requirements for keeper liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, it does not include the invitation to the keeper to pay required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
You are well aware of this defect, it being the basis on which you lost ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, claim number M4FC56Q6, in December 2025. In those circumstances, this charge is denied.
If you contend otherwise, then please reject this appeal formally and provide a POPLA verification code. If you accept that you cannot rely on PoFA, then you should now cancel the charge.
Further, if this matter engages any duties under the Equality Act 2010, you are required to consider reasonable adjustments and review the charge accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Do not embellish it. Do not identify who was driving. Do not give a narrative of what happened unless there is a very clear Equality Act point that positively helps and can be stated without identifying the driver.
After that, the likely sequence is rejection, then POPLA, then useless debt recovery letters, then possibly a Letter of Claim (LoC), then possibly a county court claim. Debt recovery letters can be safely ignored. An LoC must not be ignored. A claim must be defended.
The tactical position for this case at present is straightforward: submit the short keeper appeal now, preserve the PoFA point, reserve Equality Act matters if genuinely engaged, and expect that cancellation at first stage is unlikely.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
