just trying to get my head around something here...
Point 16 in CE's operator evidence pack, they state the following:
"16. The Driver failed to purchase parking within 10 minutes of arrival for the vehicle, registration YR11VPU, as can be seen from the attached report which shows the vehicles that did purchase parking on the day in question."
They then go on to evidence this:
Does anyone else notice the anomaly?
They then go on to state at 18: "Whilst we appreciate the Driver’s submissions, we are
unable to take into account mitigating circumstances; the terms and conditions of parking were clear."
The PPSCoP at section 8.4.4 states:
"8.4.4. In considering appeals, parking operators must consider mitigating circumstances in accordance with Annex F."
1. Failure to Acknowledge the PPSCoP (Feb 2025) Update and Its Relevance
The operator has failed to acknowledge that the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Version 1.1 (Feb 2025), which was published just days after this alleged contravention, now explicitly states that a PCN must not be issued if payment was received for the full period of parking before the vehicle left the site.
This amendment followed a national outcry over rogue operators imposing unrealistic and unfair penalty conditions, such as a strict 10-minute payment window, even when their own flawed payment systems cause delays.
The operator has failed to justify why a PCN was issued in this case, given that payment was received before departure and covered the full period of parking.
2. Failure to Address the Payment System Malfunctions
The appellant has provided clear screenshot evidence demonstrating multiple failures of the operator’s payment systems, including:
- Repeated error messages on the Phone and Pay app.
- The website failing to load properly, preventing online payment.
- The automated phone payment system requiring verbal input of card details, which repeatedly failed to register the information correctly.
- The operator claims that the system was working because other motorists made payments, but they have not evidenced this claim.
- The operator has only submitted a list of other vehicles that were eventually registered.
- This does not prove that the system was functioning correctly at all times.
- It is entirely possible that other motorists also encountered issues and only succeeded after multiple attempts, just as the appellant did.
- The operator has failed to provide system logs or any technical evidence proving that their systems were fully operational and without fault at the time of the alleged contravention.
As a result, the appellant was subjected to an unreasonable and arbitrary payment condition that could not be met due to the operator’s own failures, rather than any wrongdoing on the part of the motorist.
3. Lack of Prominent Signage Regarding the 10-Minute Payment Rule
= The operator claims that the signs were "clearly displayed", but their own photographic evidence contradicts this.
- The images provided show that the signs are barely noticeable and not positioned in a way that ensures drivers can read and understand them before entering the car park.
- Even in the close-up images submitted by the operator, it is impossible to clearly read the actual terms, particularly the 10-minute limit for payment, which appears buried in small print among other conditions.
- This is a clear failure under Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] 4 All ER 169, which establishes that for a contract to be legally binding, motorists must be given sufficient notice of the key terms before they park.
- A term that is hidden in minuscule text, buried among other information, and not legible even in the operator’s own close-up photos cannot be deemed prominent enough to form a valid contract.
- The operator has failed to provide any evidence that this critical term was displayed clearly and prominently at the entrance, where a driver could make an informed decision before entering the site.
- This lack of clarity and visibility makes the 10-minute rule an unfair and unenforceable condition.
4. Misuse of Beavis Case Law
- The operator has included a summary of ParkingEye v Beavis in an apparent attempt to suggest that this Supreme Court ruling somehow justifies the parking charge. However, this is a clear misrepresentation of that case, which has no relevance to the circumstances here.
Beavis concerned a free car park where the charge was intended as a deterrent to prevent overstaying, and the Supreme Court ruled that such a charge was justified due to the need for turnover of parking spaces.
- In contrast, this case involves paid parking, where the issue is not overstaying or abuse of the car park but rather a delayed payment caused by system failures beyond the motorist’s control.
- The core issue here is the unrealistic and unfair 10-minute payment condition, which was rendered even more unreasonable due to the operator’s own flawed payment systems.
- Beavis has no bearing on cases where a motorist fully intended to pay and did pay but was obstructed by a dysfunctional payment process and insufficiently clear contractual terms.
- The fact that the operator has included Beavis in their evidence pack without explaining its relevance suggests that they are simply relying on it as a scare tactic, rather than providing a genuine legal argument.
- POPLA assessors must not allow operators to bandy about the Beavis case in every appeal as if it applies universally. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and in this instance, the circumstances are entirely different from those in Beavis.
5. Failure to Justify the Issuance of the PCN
The operator’s own evidence confirms that payment was made before the vehicle left the site and that the driver paid for the full parking duration. Despite this, the operator still issued a PCN based on an arbitrary and predatory 10-minute payment condition, which serves no legitimate purpose other than to extract penalties from unsuspecting motorists.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Version 1.1 (Feb 2025), which was issued just days after this PCN was issued, was amended precisely because of a national outcry against rogue parking operators using this exact exploitative payment rule. The 10-minute payment condition is unfair, unreasonable, and now officially recognised as such under the PPSCoP, as it operates purely as an undisclosed penalty clause—a clear breach of contract law.
If a motorist pays for the period of parking before departure, there is no legitimate justification for issuing a penalty charge, as there is no loss incurred by the operator or landowner. The fact that the BPA and IPC had to urgently amend the industry-wide Code of Practice confirms that this tactic is entrapment, deception, and an unlawful revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine enforcement measure.
The PPSCoP now explicitly prohibits the issuance of PCNs in these circumstances, confirming that the operator’s conduct in this case is indefensible. This is not simply a minor oversight; it is a clear example of systemic abuse by rogue parking firms, who knowingly impose near-impossible conditions on motorists to engineer technical breaches that result in revenue, rather than ensuring fair and reasonable parking management.
The operator has provided no justification for issuing a PCN when the motorist ultimately complied with the fundamental requirement of paying for parking. The only reasonable conclusion is that this PCN was issued punitively and in bad faith, making it wholly unenforceable.
