Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: 2025 on April 26, 2025, 11:44:59 am
-
Hi @b789 @jfollows
I’ve finally had a response from POPLA and my appeal was successful!! A huge thanks for all your help, especially the appeal template, very much appreciated 🙏
I’m really glad that I stuck to it in the end, saved a £100, but even more importantly, got what I think is the correct decision 😊
Please see below the assessor’s findings, in the hope that it might help someone else:
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. In the appeal it was explained that the driver of the vehicle had pulled over to take a short break. They state the signage at night is totally illegible. After entering the dark site, the appellant had a closer assessment of the signs, with a torch, and left after. The appellant has provided images of the car park at night which demonstrate the site is pitch black. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case the appellant was on site for 5 minutes. I would consider it reasonable as the site was dark to take some time to read the terms. I am satisfied once they discovered the terms of the site they left within the consideration period. I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.
-
It’s always worth challenging a parking charge if you believe it was issued unfairly. Why should you pay a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company simply because they offer a discounted rate for early payment?
Signage is a key argument to raise. While appealing on signage grounds may or may not succeed at POPLA, it's important to remember that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.
The most likely outcome, if you choose to fight, is that the operator may eventually issue a county court claim. However, well-defended claims are often struck out or discontinued before reaching a hearing. Even if the case does proceed to court, there is a reasonable chance of success for a properly prepared defence.
You must decide whether to stand your ground—with a slight risk of paying around £200 if ultimately unsuccessful—or to pay nothing, gain valuable knowledge about your rights, and know that the operator likely spent more pursuing the charge than you did defending it. Alternatively, you could give in and pay the so-called 'mugs discount' rate, effectively rewarding the operator for their conduct.
In this case, the signage is poor and appears designed to entrap. You may wish to refer to what Lord Denning said in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, which introduced the "Red Hand Rule."
This principle states that the more onerous a term in a contract, the more prominent it must be. It should be brought to the attention of the motorist in a striking way—figuratively, with a red hand pointing to it. In this situation, the key term—that parking is prohibited outside certain hours and incurs a charge—ought to be clearly highlighted. Instead, the signage emphasises the '2 hours free parking' offer, drawing attention away from the penalty conditions.
-
By the way, this is the sign in the carpark, about 8ft above ground level. The 2 hours max stay is clear enough, but the rest is much smaller, and not easy to read, especially in the dark.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi @jfollows @b789
As suspected, the appeal to Parkingeye has been unsuccessful! Please find attached the letter and attachments. Is it worth me appealing to POPLA, risk being unsuccessful again and pay £100 or bite the bullet and pay £60 by tomorrow? I don't know what the success rate is with POPLA. As @b789 previously stated, the amount demanded is unfair and disproportionate, but will they agree?! Many thanks in advance for any guidance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Good luck, but be prepared for the appeal to be rejected and a requirement then for an appeal to POPLA, because they usually reject appeals because they only care about getting money from you. Come back here when/if they reject.
-
Thank you @jfollows for the advice and links.
A massive thank you also @b789 for the appeal template. I will submit this today and hope for the best.
Again, many thanks to you both 🙏👍
-
Just appeal as the Keeper with the following:
Appeal Submission to Parkingeye Ltd
Dear Sir or Madam,
Parking Charge Notice Reference: [Insert Ref Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Date of Event: 11 April 2025
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above. I write to contest the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. No Contract Formed – Consideration Period Not Respected
The vehicle remained on site for five minutes. During this time, no contract was formed. Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) requires operators to allow motorists a consideration period of at least five minutes to decide whether to accept the terms and conditions displayed. The driver used this time to assess the signage and, upon realising that parking was not authorised, exited the site without parking.
Accordingly, no parking contract was formed, and no parking charge is due.
2. Signage Not Visible – No Offer Communicated
The vehicle entered the site after dark. No visible, illuminated signage communicated the terms of parking. It is a requirement under the BPA Code of Practice (in force at the relevant time) and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) that signage must be clear, legible, and visible in all lighting conditions.
As no offer was capable of being communicated to the driver, no contract could have been formed.
3. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper issued fails to comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which mandates that the Notice must contain an invitation for the Keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. Instead, the Notice only demands that the driver pay, failing to correctly transfer liability.
As a result of this failure, you cannot pursue the registered keeper.
4. Unfair, Aggressive Business Practice
Attempting to enforce a charge of £100 for a brief stay of five minutes, purely for assessment of terms, without clear signage, constitutes a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The amount demanded is unfair and disproportionate, and any contract term seeking to impose such a penalty would not be binding.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
-
Parking Eye mainly complies with PoFA with minor exceptions which might have to be argued in court, it’s unlikely that POPLA would dismiss the invoice for these reasons alone.
You can also ask for proof of posting date, as opposed to “issue” date as you note, but this usually results in waffle and “evidence” of sending to a bulk mailing service. In any case, 11-24 April meets the PoFA requirement of 14 days.
-
You could read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4, for example.
And it wasn’t “only 5 minutes”, it was more than 5 minutes, which makes a difference.
5.1 and Annex B at https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
-
Thanks for your response.
How would I know if they have followed the provisions of PoFA 2012 legislation correctly?
And also, would it be a stronger case to argue that the vehicle was only there for 5 minutes?
-
You are never obliged to identify the driver, but liability can be transferred from the (unknown) driver to the registered keeper if all the provisions of PoFA 2012 legislation are followed.
If the signs are unlit and unreadable late at night you may want to take some pictures of them at that time.
-
Hi!
I've received a PCN (attached) as the keeper of the vehicle. The car was driven into a car park for 5 mins and 28 seconds out of store hours (at 23:33!) to drop off an individual and neither the driver or the passengers saw the signage as it was dark. T&C's were then checked by a passenger on their phone and the car was driven out once realised parking was not allowed out of store hours.
As the car was only in the car park for 5 minutes and 28 seconds, is there way to appeal this? (I've read on other posts that it might take more time than this to form the 'contract'.)
Also, am I obliged as the keeper to disclose who was driving the car at the time of the PCN?
Finally, although the Date Issued states 14/04/2025, I only received this letter 2 days ago (24/04/2025).
Thanks in advance for any help!
[attachment deleted by admin]