Hi all,
I hope you advise on what should be done with this unfair PCN.
The driver charged the electric car in a BP charging station located in the Crown Plaza Ealing car park, for 28 mins and then left. There were no clear signs that electric cars must pay for parking. It was a BP charging unit and the parking pay is clearly marked for charging cars. They never thought that they needed to pay for parking too, despite the fact they checked the signs before starting to charge, nothing indicated that electric cars using the BP charging unit must pay.
Then a Parking penalty charge notice was sent to the registered keeper of the car from ParkinEye. Would appreciate your help.
Thanks
You definitely have not received a "Penalty" Charge Notice. Maybe a "Parking" Charge Notice (PCN) in the form of a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK).
Please read this and then show us the NtK, front and back making sure that all dates and times and location are showing. Only redact your personal info, PCN number and VRM.
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
Thank you for your reply. That's correct, it's a PCN. I attached photos for you to view
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
What did the signs at the EV charging point say? Can you get photos of them? Were you a patron of the hotel at the time? Have you contacted the hotel about this? What did they say? Have you contacted BP Pulse? What did they say?
You have until Monday 25th November to submit an appeal so you should get on with answering those questions first. You appeal as the Keeper of the vehicle only. ParkingEye (PE) have no idea who the driver is. Whilst their Notice to Keeper (NtK) purports to be PoFA compliant, it is does not comply with ALL the those requirements.
If you still need more time by the deadline to appeal, simply use a generic appeal in order to get a POPLA code which is only provided upon initial appeal rejection. Remind us nearer the time, if you are still trying to gather the information requested above and we will provide something.
Appeal with the following:
Appeal of Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference Number]
This is an appeal for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to the vehicle with registration number [Insert Registration Number] on [Insert Date]. This appeal is submitted as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The charge is being disputed on the following grounds:
1. Unclear and Ambiguous Terms – Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015:
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that all contract terms must be fair and transparent. Section 68 states that terms must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and prominently brought to the attention of the consumer.
In this case, the signage fails to clearly communicate whether electric vehicle (EV) drivers using the marked EV charging bays are required to pay a parking tariff while charging. Given that:
• The parking bay is specifically marked for EV charging,
• The vehicle was actively charging for the duration of the stay,
• There was no specific mention or warning on the sign that EV users must pay for parking in addition to charging,
it is reasonable for a consumer to assume that parking is included when using the BP EV charging facility. The ambiguity in the contract terms breaches Section 69 of the CRA 2015, which states that, in cases of ambiguity, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer must prevail. Therefore, the lack of clarity regarding tariffs for EV users makes the charge unenforceable.
2. Failure to Mitigate Losses:
The driver of the vehicle acted in good faith by checking the signage before charging. The absence of explicit terms for EV charging bays meant that the driver was unaware of any requirement to pay additional parking fees. There was no intent to evade payment, and as the vehicle was actively charging, there was no loss incurred by the landowner.
3. Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i):
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Specifically, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 mandates that the NtK must include an explicit “invitation” to the keeper to pay the charge. The notice issued does not contain such an invitation nor any synonym of the word. This is a critical failure in compliance and renders the NtK invalid for the purpose of pursuing the keeper for liability.
As the keeper, I am not liable for the charge, and your failure to meet the strict requirements of PoFA is grounds for cancellation of this PCN.
4. No Evidence of Keeper Liability or Driver Identification:
As per PoFA 2012, liability for the charge can only be transferred to the registered keeper if all the conditions in Schedule 4 are met. Since the NtK fails to comply with the requirements outlined above, the liability does not pass to the keeper. Furthermore, as the keeper, no evidence has been provided to identify the driver and no assumptions or inference can be made.
5. Request for Evidence:
Should you disagree with this appeal, please provide the following:
• A full breakdown of the terms that specifically apply to EV drivers in the marked charging bays.
• Evidence that the NtK complies with PoFA 2012, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
• A copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises you to issue charges on their behalf.
Conclusion:
Given the ambiguity of the signage under the CRA 2015, the absence of clear terms applicable to EV users, the NtK’s non-compliance with PoFA, I request that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled immediately.
Should you reject this appeal, I expect a POPLA verification code to be provided so I can escalate this matter to the independent appeals service.
Thank you very much ! An appeal was submitted but got rejected later.
They sent a letter of rejection and a PoPLA ref number.
The rejection of the appeal was on the following grounds:
''We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available. We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.''
Would appreciate your feedback and what to do next.
Thanks
Did you send the appeal as suggested? What is the appeal rejection date?
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal.
Did you send the appeal as suggested? What is the appeal rejection date?
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal.
Yes, I sent the suggested appeal, many thanks.
The rejection letter was sent on 29/11.
Shall I proceed with the POPLA appeal? Which category should I select? Any other things you would suggest to do ?
Many thanks
Shall I proceed with the POPLA appeal? Which category should I select? Any other things you would suggest to do ?
Of course you go with a POPLA appeal. What do you mean "Which category"?
There is no rush to do the appeal and you should show us what you intend to send before you do anything. Personally, I wouldn't bother with anything until after Xmas.
I wrote the following appeal, would appreciate any comments:
This is an appeal for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/10/2024 on the following grounds:
1. The car is an electric car and the driver used the charging station located in the car park which located next to the busy A40 for about 28 mins. The driver took all the possible precautions to abide by the laws of the car park. They checked all the signs and nothing indicated that electric cars using BP should pay for parking.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that all contract terms must be fair and transparent. Section 68 states that terms must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and prominently brought to the attention of the consumer.
In this case, the signage fails to clearly communicate whether electric vehicle (EV) drivers using the marked EV charging bays are required to pay a parking tariff while charging. Given that:
• The parking bay is specifically marked for EV charging,
• The vehicle was actively charging for the duration of the stay,
• There was no specific mention or warning on the sign that EV users must pay for parking in addition to charging,
it is reasonable for a consumer to assume that parking is included when using the BP EV charging facility. The ambiguity in the contract terms breaches Section 69 of the CRA 2015, which states that, in cases of ambiguity, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer must prevail. Therefore, the lack of clarity regarding tariffs for EV users makes the charge unenforceable.
2. The driver of the vehicle acted in good faith by checking the signage before charging. The absence of explicit terms for EV charging bays meant that the driver was unaware of any requirement to pay additional parking fees. There was no intent to evade payment, and as the vehicle was actively charging, there was no loss incurred by the landowner.
Given the ambiguity of the signage under the CRA 2015, the absence of clear terms applicable to EV users, the Notice to Keeper’s non-compliance with PoFA, I request that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled immediately.
I attached photos of the signage and payment made for charging the car on the day.
Cleaned up a bit and added a few more points that PE will need to evidence and rebut:
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice: [Insert PCN Reference Number]
Vehicle Registration Number: [Insert Registration Number]
Date of Parking Event: [Insert Date]
Grounds of Appeal:
1. Unclear and Ambiguous Terms – Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 mandates that all terms of a contract must be fair, transparent, and prominently communicated. In this instance, the signage in the car park fails to clearly inform users of the terms applicable to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, specifically whether parking tariffs apply to vehicles actively charging.
Key points:
• The EV bay is designated for charging, and the vehicle was actively charging during the 28-minute stay.
• No signage explicitly states that EV users must pay a parking fee in addition to charging fees.
• The lack of explicit, clear terms creates ambiguity. Section 69 of the CRA 2015 states that any ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
Should the POPLA assessor disagree with the clear presence of ambiguity, they risk undermining their position of impartiality. It must be emphasised that Section 69 of the CRA 2015 is indisputable in its application, and any contrary ruling would leave the appellant no choice but to pursue this matter in court. ParkingEye (PE) would face an unwinnable case, as the courts will unambiguously side with the appellant on this point of law. POPLA must carefully consider whether to proceed in supporting PE when the appellant is prepared to escalate this matter and has every confidence that PE would not succeed.
It is reasonable for an EV driver to assume that using a marked charging bay for its intended purpose does not require a separate parking payment. This ambiguity renders the parking charge unenforceable.
2. Failure to Clearly Mark or Specify Terms on Signage
The signage at this location fails to meet the requirements for clarity, legibility, and unambiguity under the new Private Parking Single Code of Practice introduced on 1 October 2024. While the transition period allows existing car parks until 2026 to fully conform with the updated signage requirements, the principles of transparency, fairness, and clear communication apply immediately to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws and contractual fairness.
Key deficiencies in the signage:
• There is no explicit notice on or near the EV charging bays indicating that parking charges apply while using the charging facilities.
• The terms and conditions lack sufficient detail to inform Electric Vehicle (EV) drivers that they are required to pay for parking in addition to charging fees.
• The signage does not meet the necessary standards of prominence and intelligibility required to ensure that the terms are brought to the consumer’s attention before they enter into a contract.
Even under the prior British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice v9, signage was required to be clear, unambiguous, and prominently displayed to comply with consumer law. The failure to meet these standards, regardless of the phased implementation timeline for the new Code, makes the signage inadequate for forming a valid contract with the driver.
The lack of compliance with signage standards and the ambiguity in the terms further supports the appellant’s claim that the Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable.
3. No Loss Suffered by the Landowner
The vehicle was actively using a paid-for service (EV charging). There was no free parking occupied without payment or misuse of the space. The driver acted in good faith, and the landowner did not incur any financial loss as a result of the stay. Consequently, the parking charge represents a punitive fee rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which contravenes the principles established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].
4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkingEye fails to comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
While the NtK mentions that the keeper may be held liable if the driver is not identified, it fails to explicitly include the required invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The specific requirement is clear in the legislation and cannot be dismissed as being “implied” simply because the NtK is addressed to the keeper. The law explicitly demands an unambiguous invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
POPLA assessors have previously erred in this area by claiming compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e), conveniently overlooking the critical and specific requirement of subsection (i). The requirement for an invitation is not satisfied by implication or inference; it must be expressly and explicitly stated within the NtK. In this case, ParkingEye has failed to meet that standard.
This omission is a material failure to comply with PoFA 2012, which renders the NtK non-compliant and invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper. As the keeper, I cannot be held liable for this Parking Charge Notice, and any attempt to do so would be contrary to PoFA’s statutory framework.
5. Request for Evidence
ParkingEye is put to strict proof of the following:
• A copy of the full signage terms, specifically relating to EV charging bays, including all locations within the car park where such signs are displayed.
• Evidence that the signage is visible, prominent, and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
• A breakdown of any genuine loss incurred as a result of the vehicle’s stay, particularly given that it was actively using a paid-for EV charging facility.
6. ParkingEye’s Contractual Authority and Its Relevance to EV Charging Bays
ParkingEye must demonstrate that they have the authority, flowing from the landowner, to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this location. While POPLA often accepts a signed witness statement from the parking operator asserting contractual authority, this case requires stricter scrutiny due to the specific circumstances surrounding the EV charging bays.
It is insufficient for ParkingEye to provide a generic statement of authority. To meet the burden of proof, ParkingEye must produce the actual, contemporaneous contract with the landowner or lawful occupier, signed and dated, that was in effect on the date of the alleged parking event. This contract must explicitly address the following points:
A. Definition of "Parking" vs. "Charging":
• The contract must specify whether vehicles using the EV charging bays are subject to the same parking tariffs as those occupying standard parking spaces.
• If EV charging is contractually separate from parking, the signage and enforcement at the location must reflect this distinction.
B. Inclusion of EV Charging Bays in Parking Enforcement:
• The contract must confirm whether ParkingEye has been authorised to issue PCNs for vehicles using the EV charging bays while actively charging.
• If no such authorisation exists, ParkingEye lacks the legal basis to issue PCNs in these circumstances.
C. Scope of Authority:
• The contract must delineate the terms under which ParkingEye operates at the location, including any specific provisions relating to signage, EV charging facilities, and enforcement practices.
Failure to provide this evidence would mean that ParkingEye cannot substantiate their claim of authority, nor can they demonstrate that the terms of their agreement encompass EV charging facilities. Any decision by POPLA without examining the actual contract in detail would be premature and unjustified in this case.
Conclusion
The parking charge is based on unclear and ambiguous terms, inadequate signage, a flawed NtK that fails to comply with PoFA 2012, and a lack of contractual evidence demonstrating ParkingEye’s authority to enforce parking charges for EV charging bays. Furthermore, no financial loss was incurred by the landowner. Based on these grounds, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.