Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: beedmo on May 06, 2025, 06:05:13 pm
-
Great news! All 3 POPLA appeals have come through as successful! Many thanks to all who assisted!
They’re all the same assessor and say the same thing pretty much. I’ll paste it below - should anyone wish to see the other two, let me know.
Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 6061785462 which was issued to PCN number 238538/566743.
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.
This PCN has been issued for not gaining at the appropriate permit/authorisation. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs.
The signage at this site states parking is for patrons only and they must enter their vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay.
The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 23 hours and 4 minutes and their vehicle registration was not listed as having registered to obtain a permit.
The appellant has said in their appeal that the entrance sign was not visible as the driver entered the site. They have said this is inadequate and incorrectly positioned facing a dead-end road not oncoming traffic. The appellant has said that since the sign is not visible to incoming drivers, no terms were communicated, and therefore no contract could have been formed, breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
The appellant has acknowledged that the terms are displayed deeper inside the car park, but said no opportunity was given to consider or reject the contract before it was deemed to have begun. After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has said Parking Eye have not addressed or rebutted this as their photo of the entrance sign is misleading, as it is a close-up image that does not show whether the sign is visible from a vehicle on approach.
The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 states parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land, and Section 19.3 says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms within the site. Within their case file the parking operator has provided a site map and images of the signage situated throughout the site, including the site entrance. The site map shows the entrance sign is positioned on the left side of the entrance as you approach it.
The appellant has provided a photo from dashcam footage taken on 28/04/2025 and they say this shows that no signage was visible at the point of entry and a photo of the same sign taken on 07/05/25, saying this shows it is facing away from oncoming traffic. The appellants images show the sign at the entrance, which I am satisfied would be seen by a driver if approaching the site from the right, as it is facing that direction. However, if a motorist is approaching the site from the left, the appellants evidence shows they would see the back of the sign and if they were then to turn into the site, and the driver’s seat is on the right, they may not see this sign. Therefore, from the evidence provided, it appears entirely possible that a motorist could enter the site from this direction and not see the entrance sign. They then would not be aware they were entering private land or that parking restrictions applied and therefore would not be expected to look for terms and conditions signage within the site.
The image of the entrance sign the operator has provided has been taken in close proximity and therefore does not show how this appears to drivers when entering the site. Therefore in this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal.
I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
-
A third and final POPLA has come through where they identify me as the driver, which is funny because their own evidence shows that I appealed as RK and never identified myself as the driver.
Rebutted as per the last 2 and additionally rebutted their claim of me as driver pointing out their own evidence shows that I am RK.
Also noted that due to their failure to prove how I have been IDd as the driver the second Ntk is not POFA compliant.
-
Just point out to the assessor any points from your appeal that they have not rebutted and rebut any new points they may have raised in the "evidence'!
Absolutely. It boils my blood that they include a close up photo of the entrance sign the speak is hinged on. Completely out of context and borderline fraudulent!
Anyway, my reply was this;
ParkingEye have failed to address the central argument of my appeal: that the entrance signage is not visible to drivers entering the site.
Their evidence consists of a close-up sign photo with no context and no indication of visibility from the access route.
My dashcam still and photos (already submitted) prove the sign faces away from the road, making it unreadable and invisible to incoming vehicles.
As a result, no contract could have been formed, and no breach could have occurred.
Their response is boilerplate and does not engage with the specific photographic evidence or rebut the issue of inadequate signage.
I respectfully ask that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN.
-
Just point out to the assessor any points from your appeal that they have not rebutted and rebut any new points they may have raised in the "evidence'!
-
Second POPLA operator docs came through today - Same boilerplate response with no direct rebuttal of any of my point and evidence.
I’m kind of using this forum as a secondary way to document times and dates of what happens when - I do apologise about any unnecessary notifications anyone gets.
-
Just keep it all as evidence.
-
Of course they have a standard evidence pack, it would be expensive to craft a unique response to each case. The duplicate letters seems odd unless they are reminder letters, if they have the same reference it's only one PCN, don't over think it, their systems will be automated so it's unlikely to be human error.
As for the email, you sent a query via their privacy form and received a reply confirming it will be dealt with by their privacy team, not really that odd.
I do find it odd.
It’s not a reminder for a PCN. It says Parking Charge Notice and on the back says I’ve been IDd as the driver - which I have not done.
It has the same PCN number as another PCN issued a few months prior but is issued on a different date and they’ve reissued a second rejection letter with the same POPLA code
-
Of course they have a standard evidence pack, it would be expensive to craft a unique response to each case. The duplicate letters seems odd unless they are reminder letters, if they have the same reference it's only one PCN, don't over think it, their systems will be automated so it's unlikely to be human error.
As for the email, you sent a query via their privacy form and received a reply confirming it will be dealt with by their privacy team, not really that odd.
-
This is getting very strange now. I asked on their website via the privacy form for them to explain why a second NtK was issued with an allegation of the driver being identified. This morning I woke up to an email saying that it had been passed to the privacy team.
They've just follwed up with another carbon copy appeal rejection, however, with todays date. Same PCN and POPLA ref code
-
So, the first evidence pack from PE has come back. They clearly used a boilerplate example becuase they brought up beavis v parkingeye which I never challenged them on. They supplied contracts with the landowner, which I never challenged. They havent actually rebutted any of my points and used out of context photos of the signage. Below is their repsonse, followed by Mine
ParkingEye
Case History
28/04/2025
Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
30/04/2025
Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
02/05/2025
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
02/05/2025
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-212
07/05/2025
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
07/05/2025
Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
20/05/2025
Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA (w/FAQS POFA)
21/06/2025
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-212
23/06/2025
Letter Issued - **Unsuccessful POPLA - Pro-Active
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Patrons only free stay car park when a patron enters their registration into the terminal at reception as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."
“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.
We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.
This car park has been registered with the British Parking Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.
Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack.
Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences, and the authority is given.
Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
My Response
I wish to respond to ParkingEye’s evidence submission as follows:
ParkingEye has not addressed or rebutted my core argument that the entrance sign is not visible to drivers entering the site.
Their photo of the sign is misleading. It is a close-up image that does not show whether the sign is visible from a vehicle on approach.
I have submitted a dashcam still (28/04/2025) and a photo (30/06/2025) showing the sign cannot be seen by a driver entering the estate.
I have also submitted two additional photos (10/07/2025) of the same sign, taken from the actual approach. These confirm it faces sideways, not toward oncoming traffic.
The sign is not legible or visible at the point where ParkingEye claims a contract is formed.
No contract could have been formed, so no terms could have been breached.
The BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signs to be visible on entry. ParkingEye has not shown this is the case.
No driver has been identified, and I, as keeper, have not been held liable under PoFA as no contract was formed.
ParkingEye’s evidence is generic, lacks context, and does not answer the specific points I raised. I respectfully maintain that the charge is unenforceable and ask that my appeal be upheld.
-
Because I’m petty and want to waste as much of their time as they’re wasting of mine, I’ve submitted a SAR. Hopefully it’ll also get them to disclose that they have no reason to be identifying me as the driver.
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018.
Please provide all personal data you hold about me, specifically relating to:
• My name:
• My vehicle registration: [Insert Your Reg]
• Any Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to that vehicle, including:
• PCN#
• PCN#
• PCN#
This includes, but is not limited to:
• All correspondence, appeal notes, or internal logs (including annotations or call centre notes)
• Any documents or data used to allege that I “have been identified as the driver or have identified myself”
• Copies of any images, video, or ANPR data
• DVLA request logs or communications
• Records showing the legal basis under which you are processing and storing my data
• Copies of all letters, emails, notices, and appeal rejections sent to or from my name or relating to my registration
I understand I am entitled to receive this information within one calendar month from the date of this request.
I have attached a photo of my driving licence as proof of ID.
Yours sincerely,
-
This is what I’ve got so far. Obviously evidence will be attached to the actual appeal. I assume I’m appealing it on the PE website because there’s no other way to lol
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write regarding the above Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to a contravention on 30 April 2025.
In your letter dated 27 May 2025, you acknowledged that I had:
“…stated that [I was] not the driver of the vehicle… [and] have not indicated who was.”
You also confirmed that you do not know the driver’s name or address, which is necessary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if you wish to pursue the registered keeper.
However, in your subsequent letter dated 28 June 2025, you proceed to reject my appeal and imply the matter can be pursued against me, despite the fact that:
• I have never been identified as the driver
• You acknowledged this in writing
• The Notice to Keeper was issued 59 days after the date of the alleged contravention, far outside the limit required under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
Your actions are therefore:
• Procedurally unfair
• In breach of the BPA Code of Practice
• Potentially misleading under consumer law, notably the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
⸻
Request
I now formally request:
1. Confirmation that keeper liability will not be pursued
2. Cancellation of this charge on the grounds that no contract was formed and PoFA does not apply
3. A written explanation for the conflicting letters and misrepresentation of driver identification
If this is not resolved promptly, I will be submitting formal complaints to:
• The British Parking Association (BPA), for breach of their Code
• The DVLA, for potential misuse of my personal data under your KADOE agreement
-
Ask them why they have two different versions of the same NtK for the alleged contravention on 30/04/2025?
One is issued on 05/05/2025 and is almost PoFA compliant and the other is issued on 28/06/2025 and clearly is not PoFA compliant but under the PoFA statement on the back says you have identified yourself or been identified as the driver.
Without a saatisfactory explanation, you can further report them to the DVLA and the BPA (for what that is worth).
I should note that the ref number at the top of the one I recieved today is the same as the orginal, does this change anything?
How would I get in contact with PE regarding this? Is it a case of appealing again?
-
Ask them why they have two different versions of the same NtK for the alleged contravention on 30/04/2025?
One is issued on 05/05/2025 and is almost PoFA compliant and the other is issued on 28/06/2025 and clearly is not PoFA compliant but under the PoFA statement on the back says you have identified yourself or been identified as the driver.
Without a saatisfactory explanation, you can further report them to the DVLA and the BPA (for what that is worth).
-
I have just recived another PCN for one of the issues already appealed against with PE - and rejected. The back says that I have been or have identified myself as the driver. Is this PE trying to now use protections of freedoms act to hold the rk liable? Should I just ignore and continue at popla?
I also have evidence they replied to my appeals saying I had said I was not the driver, which i didnt. I simply said i was rk
(https://i.imgur.com/0u8aLRc.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OtkAYNv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/scYXdPO.png)
-
I’ve got the second appeal rejection from parkingeye. I’m thinking of mentioning the other popla appeal I have already submitted but also, part of me likes the idea of letting POPLA assessors contradict each other.
Thoughts?
-
After some time to think about if I should point out the signage in the car park, I thought I may as well and then consider if I should put it in the final appeal. Below is what I've settled on so far
6. Internal Signage Does Not Satisfy Entrance Signage Requirements
It is acknowledged that signage may be present within the car park itself, displaying terms and conditions. However, such signs do not satisfy the BPA requirement for entrance signage.
The BPA Code of Practice states:
"Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly visible to drivers when entering the land."
This is a fundamental requirement. The supposed contract begins at the moment a driver enters the site, yet in this case, the terms are not visible until after that moment. Internal signs cannot retroactively form a contract once a vehicle has already entered private land — especially if ANPR captures entry before any terms are visible.
Furthermore:
- Once inside, the driver may be unable to turn around
- They may be unaware they are even being monitored
- The only chance to avoid a charge is at the point of entry, and that opportunity was not provided
Therefore, the existence of internal signs does not remedy the failure of entrance signage and does not support the enforceability of this charge.
-
Available on request has been removed and replaced with a still image, time stamped from the date and time of the alleged contravention.
I don’t think going further into the signage would be a good idea. They’re standard parkingeye signage which seem to be the gold standard having looked at other posts.
I have added the following to point 5 to make it more relevant and potentially strengthen it?
5. Pattern of Repeated PCNs – Ongoing Signage Failure
Multiple Parking Charge Notices have since been issued to this vehicle for additional visits to the same car park on subsequent days.
This strongly suggests that:
The entrance signage remained non-visible or unclear
No reasonable notice of terms or restrictions was provided
A motorist could unknowingly return and park multiple times, unaware that any parking charge scheme was in operation
It is relevant to note that the driver works at another unit within the industrial estate and is paid a base wage of £135 per day, with no additional overtime or unsociable hour enhancements.
No reasonable person in such circumstances would knowingly choose to incur parking fines of £80 (discounted) or £100 (full rate) per day — more than half of their daily income — just to attend work. The only logical conclusion is that the driver was unaware of the restrictions, further reinforcing the claim that the signage is wholly inadequate and failed to alert site users to the presence of any parking enforcement.
This pattern demonstrates a fundamental and ongoing failure to meet the BPA Code of Practice and the requirement to clearly convey terms at the point of entry.
-
Thanks for the observation regarding point 5, I hadn’t noticed that. As with the first appeal, I did enlist the help of ChatGPT and clearly hadn’t proof read it. I’ll have a think of if I should include it at all but maybe I’ll add something about the driver not wanted to be charged £300 to park for 3 days - will see when I’ve got some time to tweak.
Stills of the dashcam is a fantastic way to get around the file size, great idea - thanks!
-
Decent start... Some brief initial observations:
- If you are going to argue that there is no keeper liability, you'd be wise not to say who was driving, which you currently do in point #5
- See what others think, but I'm not sure I'd bother with point #5 at all, whilst in this case it shows the driver was unaware of the restrictions, it could equally be the actions of a driver who wilfully ignores any parking restrictions
- The entrance signage seems to be your strongest point, but it might be worth addressing the rest of the signage to demonstrate that the terms were not adequately conveyed to the driver. I note that in your image of the entrance a number of signs elsewhere in the car park are visible. This does not negate the point that entrance signage is required, but equally might not help the wider point around adequate signage.
- You mention dashcam footage "available on request". POPLA will not request it, they will make their decision based on the evidence presented to them. If you believe the dashcam footage supports your case, include stills from it in your appeal document.
-
I’ve also added some further issues to bring to POPLA to hopefully strengthen my appeal.
POPLA Appeal – ParkingEye
PCN Reference: 218534/426390
Vehicle Registration:
POPLA Verification Code:
Appellant:
Date:
Grounds of Appeal:
1. Inadequate and incorrectly positioned entrance signage
2. Keeper liability cannot apply – no contract formed
3. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
4. Invalid use of ANPR technology
5. Pattern of repeated PCNs proves ongoing signage failure
---
1. Inadequate and Misplaced Entrance Signage – No Contract Could Have Been Formed
ParkingEye relies on an entrance sign that is:
- Not visible to any vehicle entering via the only access route
- Facing a dead-end road with no entry/exit
- Not positioned to face oncoming traffic
I have provided:
- An annotated satellite image (Annex A) showing the true vehicle access route
- The incorrect sign location
- My photo location showing the sign is still facing away
The BPA Code of Practice clearly states:
“Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly visible to drivers when entering the land.”
Since no such sign is visible, no terms could be communicated and no contract could have been formed.
---
2. Keeper Liability Cannot Apply – No Contract Formed
I am the registered keeper but have made no admission as to the identity of the driver.
While ParkingEye’s NTK may follow PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, that only applies where:
- A valid contract was formed with the driver
- That contract was breached
- The terms were clearly visible at the point of entry
In this case, the alleged contract was not offered at all — the sign was not visible to incoming traffic, and the terms could not be read or accepted. Therefore:
- No contract was formed
- No breach occurred
- Keeper liability cannot apply
---
3. Breach of BPA Code of Practice
ParkingEye has breached several elements of the BPA Code:
- No visible entrance signage from the actual route in
- Sign faces a dead-end, not traffic
- Drivers cannot read or accept terms before parking
This is a direct breach of:
Appendix B: “Signs must be clear and visible on entry and throughout the car park.”
---
4. Invalid Use of ANPR Technology
The car park is enforced via ANPR, which logs vehicle entry at the moment a car passes the camera. This moment is treated as the start of a contract.
However:
- The entrance sign is not visible at this point
- The driver is recorded before any terms are communicated
- No fair opportunity is given to accept or reject the contract
The BPA Code requires:
“ANPR should only be used where signage is adequate and clearly visible upon entry.”
That is not the case here. The use of ANPR without visible terms invalidates the alleged contract.
---
5. Pattern of Repeated PCNs – Ongoing Signage Failure
I have since received two further PCNs for entering and parking at the same car park on the two following days.
This strongly supports the argument that:
- The entrance signage is not visible
- No reasonable notice of terms was given
- A driver could unwittingly park there repeatedly
Had I seen any signage or restrictions, I would not have returned the following day — let alone a third. This ongoing issue demonstrates a fundamental failure to comply with BPA standards.
---
Supporting Evidence
- Annex A – Annotated satellite map showing route, sign, and photo position
- Photo of the entrance sign still facing the wrong direction
- Dashcam footage (available on request – file too large to attach)
---
Conclusion
The parking charge is unenforceable for the following reasons:
- No visible entrance signage
- No contract was formed
- Keeper liability does not apply
- ANPR used improperly
- Repeat PCNs show driver was unaware of restrictions
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
Signed,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
-
I have now used satilite view on Google Maps to create this as it has become clear that some people may get confused that the sign is facing a dead end with no entry/exit point and will attach to POPLA. Also, a provisional appeal to POPLA, which any advice would be appriciated.
(https://i.imgur.com/tUvg0lF.png)
POPLA Appeal Statement
PCN Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
POPLA Verification Code:
Appellant:
Date:
Grounds of Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above. I am appealing ParkingEye Ltd’s decision to reject my initial appeal on the basis of:
- Inadequate and incorrectly positioned signage at the site
- Keeper liability cannot apply – no contract formed
- Failure to comply with BPA Code of Practice
- No valid contract was formed
1. Inadequate and Misplaced Entrance Signage – No Contract Could Have Been Formed
The alleged contravention is based on the presence of signage that was not visible to any driver entering the car park from the only logical access route. ParkingEye relies on an “entrance sign” which is not positioned at the actual estate or car park entrance but is instead located at the end of a dead-end road which has no access, no traffic flow, and no entry/exit point.
I have attached an annotated satellite image of the area (see Annex A) showing the following:
- The Estate Entrance on Rainsford Road, which is the only viable route for vehicles to access the car park
- The Car Park Entrance and the flow of traffic into it
- The actual position of the sign being used to justify the PCN, which is facing a dead-end with no vehicle access
- The photo location where I captured images of the signage still facing away from the road
Because of this placement, no driver entering the estate via the correct and only available route would see the entrance sign, let alone be able to read any terms and conditions. This is a direct breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19 and Appendix B, which require that:
“Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly visible to drivers when entering the land.”
Since the signage is not visible to any motorist entering the site lawfully, it is impossible for any contract to have been formed.
2. Keeper Liability Cannot Apply – No Contract Formed
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but have made no admission as to the identity of the driver.
While ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper complies with the technical requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, keeper liability can only apply where a valid contract has been offered to and breached by the driver.
In this case, no such contract could have been formed, because the supposed “entrance” sign relied upon by ParkingEye is not visible to any driver entering the car park. The sign is positioned facing a dead-end road, not the actual access route into the site, meaning no terms were visible or communicated at the point of entry.
As the BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signage to be clear, prominent, and readable without stopping, this failure to communicate any terms upon entry invalidates any alleged contract.
Accordingly, since no contract was formed, there can be no breach, and no basis for holding the keeper liable under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
Without this, the PCN cannot be enforced against me as keeper.
3. Breach of BPA Code of Practic
ParkingEye has breached several key elements of the BPA Code:
- Entrance signage was not visible or readable from the route taken into the car park
- The sign’s orientation faces away from oncoming traffic
- The sign is placed in a location that no vehicle would logically pass
The Code requires that drivers be able to read and understand the terms before they decide to park. That clearly did not happen here.
4. Supporting Evidence
Annex A – Annotated satellite image showing site layout, signage location, and entry route
Photograph taken recently from the star-marked location, showing the sign still faces away from oncoming vehicles
Dashcam footage recorded on the date of the alleged offence, showing the absence of any visible entrance signage.
(Due to file size, this footage is available upon request. Please contact me and I will provide it via file transfer, email, or USB if necessary.)
Conclusion
The charge is unenforceable for the following reasons:
- There is no compliant entrance signage visible to motorists entering the estate
- The supposed sign faces a dead-end and cannot be seen by entering drivers
- I have not admitted to being the driver, and keeper liability has not been established under POFA 2012
- No valid contract was offered or accepted due to the signage issues
I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye Ltd to cancel the charge.
-
There is a sign at an angle, you’re right. At an angle that no person entering the industrial estate would see. The sign is pointing the opposite direction to the entrance of the industrial estate drivers would enter through and the road leads onto a dead end. I wouldn’t call that sufficient signage personally
-
Not really surprising, it wasn't a strong appeal reason especially considering there's a sign in the photo above, right in front of you as you drive in as well as the one at an angle by the entrance. Parking Eye signage is usually OK and often used on here to highlight deficiencies in the signage of other companies.
-
Hello people,
They have said my appeal has been unsuccessful, even with evidence in first appeal the signage isn’t compliant with BPA code.
Any advice would be appreciated on next steps.
(https://i.imgur.com/gMgiOt4.jpeg)
-
This is a standard response they send to everyone who appeals as the keeper without nominating a driver. I'd just ignore it and wait for a proper appeal response.
-
I have now been sent a letter containing this
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 28 April
2025 at 15:52, at Wasabi Sushi & Bento, London NW10 7FW car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further
information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the
breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking
charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal
address of the driver.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not
been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we
have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered
keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable
conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.
Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you
do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be
obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.
Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the
evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well
be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
I’m thinking they want me to provide the name of the driver hoping the driver will simply pay. Hopefully I’ve rattled them regarding the signage because they haven’t responded to any of my points regarding their signage.
I note how they say I have told them I was not the driver. This isn’t the case. I simply said that I was “not admitting to being the driver”.
Can anyone advise on the next steps? I don’t want to identify the driver in case they attempt to disregard my points about signage and continue to try and collect the penalty.
TIA
-
Hi All
I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, have been issued 3 PCNS for 3 days of alleged contraventions by parkingeye. As you can imagine £180 or £300 is quite a sum of money to be presented with in the space of a few days.
The tickets and evidence pointing to the lack of signage are located at the bottom of the post. For context, The driver drives into the car park from right to left - meaning the sign is facing away from the driver! (The writing on the tickets is to remind me one day prior to appeal to give me as much time as possible for the others)
Any opinions on how sucessful my appeal is likely to be based on past expirence would be greatly weclomed.
Below is my the appeal i have created for the first one as a result of some ChatGPT work.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd, reference number (Ref #), on the grounds of inadequate and non-compliant entrance signage at the site in question.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I wish to make it clear that I am not admitting to being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, nor am I obligated to identify the driver under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 unless the notice fully complies with the strict conditions set out in that legislation.
According to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice – Section 19.2 and Appendix B, entrance signage must be:
- Clear and prominent
- Positioned to face oncoming vehicles
- Visible and legible without requiring drivers to stop
On the date of the alleged contravention, the signage at the entrance was not facing the direction of oncoming traffic, making it impossible to read upon entry. This violates the BPA requirement that drivers must be able to see and understand the terms and conditions upon entering the site.
To support this, I have included:
- A photograph taken today, showing that the entrance sign is still incorrectly positioned and not facing approaching vehicles.
- Dashcam footage from the date of the alleged contravention, clearly showing the entrance signage was not visible or legible.
Please note that the file size of the footage exceeds the allowable upload limit for this appeal platform. However, I will gladly provide the video footage upon request via email, file transfer, or physical media if necessary.
Due to the poor positioning of the entrance sign, the driver was not made aware that they were entering private land governed by specific parking terms, and therefore no contract could have been formed.
I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. Should you decide not to uphold my appeal, please provide the following:
I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. Should you decide not to uphold my appeal, please provide the following:
- Evidence of the entrance signage at the time of entry, including photographs showing its orientation relative to approaching vehicles.
- A site map showing the exact positioning of the signage.
Confirmation that the signage complied with BPA Code of Practice requirements at the time of the alleged contravention.
Please consider this a formal appeal. I request that all enforcement activity is paused while the appeal is under review.
(https://i.imgur.com/nXzkCI0.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sxwLRiJ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pPJgNxO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZG5HImN.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IorVuDx.jpeg)
-
The driver drove in from the left, meaning the sinage is not pointing to someone as they drive into the car park.
Does this give me a case?
(https://i.imgur.com/XM4HGhh.jpeg)
-
Being stressed about a new job is unlikely to provide a useful avenue of defence at any stage of the process, but your mention of said job had raised a question - does the driver work at Wasabi Sushi & Bento? If so, a good first port of call would be to speak to the management there to see if they will intervene.
Unfortunatly not. That would be too easy.
The driver works on the same industrial estate. They were not made aware of additional parking on site for the first three days of his employment. They parked there at their interview and never recived a ticket. They have spoken to people at their work and have been told site management of Wasabi will not intervene.
-
Being stressed about a new job is unlikely to provide a useful avenue of defence at any stage of the process, but your mention of said job had raised a question - does the driver work at Wasabi Sushi & Bento? If so, a good first port of call would be to speak to the management there to see if they will intervene.
-
Hello,
I have, today (06.05.25), recived a PCN dated 02.05.2 from parkingeye regarding the driver of the vehicle which I am the registered keeper of, being parked without a permit.
The driver did this a further two times. If there is no way to get out of the fine, I would be greatly appriciative of any advice in regards to potentially having to pay only one fine should a further two fines come in. (A total of £300 or £180 if paid in 14 days).
As it is somewhere the driver goes frequently, I will get them to get some photos of the car park enterance and potentially get dashcam footage that, hopefully, show the signs are not clear enough on entry to the car park.
The driver is Autistic and was stressed about this being their first few days starting at a new place of employment and being late due to not being able to find parking if this could be used as a mitigating factor
(https://i.imgur.com/ibOE4dH.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5wHlHKL.jpeg)
TIA