Appellant: [Your Name]
PCN Reference: [PCN Number]
POPLA Reference: [POPLA Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Your Vehicle Reg]
Grounds for Appeal:
1. No Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
2. ParkingEye Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable Under PoFA
3. No Breach of Terms – The Driver Was a Paying Customer
4. Contradictory and Unclear Signage – No Clear Contract Formed
5. Incorrect Allegation – ‘0 Hours and 0 Minutes’ Max Stay Is Illogical and Unenforceable
6. The Operator Must Provide Evidence of Their Contract With the Landowner Covering Enforcement During Opening Hours
7. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
1. No Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
The Keeper did not receive an original Notice to Keeper (NtK), only a reminder notice.
Under Paragraph 9(4) and 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), ParkingEye must deliver a compliant NtK to the Registered Keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention if they wish to rely on Keeper liability.
Since no original NtK was received, ParkingEye must provide strict proof of posting, not just proof of notice generation.
Section 8.1.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) states:
“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).”
ParkingEye is therefore required to prove the date of posting, which can only be evidenced by:
• A Proof of Posting Certificate from the Post Office, or
• Third-party mail consolidator documentation confirming the actual date the notice was entered into the postal system.
If ParkingEye cannot provide such evidence, then it cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.
2. ParkingEye Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable Under PoFA
Even if ParkingEye claims that an NtK was sent, the burden of proof remains on them to show it was correctly issued and delivered within the statutory timeframe.
Since the original NtK was not received, ParkingEye cannot demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 9(4) of PoFA, which states that the notice must be delivered within 14 days.
Without a compliant NtK, ParkingEye has no legal basis to transfer liability to the Keeper, and therefore any claim against the Keeper must fail.
3. No Breach of Terms – The Driver Was a Paying Customer
The signage at the location states:
"Customer only car park. For use only while using site facilities. 1½ hour max stay. No parking between 1:30 am – 6:00 am."
The Driver was a paying customer at KFC at the time of the alleged contravention and evidenced having made a purchase at 2:20 am. The total time on-site was 13 minutes, well within the 1 hour 30 minutes allowed for customers.
Since the restaurant was open until 3:00 am, and the signage states that the car park is for customers while using site facilities, there was no breach of the stated terms.
ParkingEye cannot issue a charge based on an unclear or misleading restriction that is not clearly stated on the signage.
4. Contradictory and Unclear Signage – No Clear Contract Formed
For a contract to be enforceable, it must be clear, legible, and unambiguous, allowing a motorist to understand the terms before agreeing to them. The signage at this location fails to meet the required standards and is contradictory because:
• The sign permits customers to park while using site facilities, yet the PCN was issued despite the fact that KFC was still open at the time of the alleged contravention.
• The sign states a 1 hour 30 minutes maximum stay, but the PCN alleges that the vehicle overstayed a "0 hours and 0 minutes" max stay, which is contradictory and illogical.
• The sign does not explicitly warn customers that they may be penalised even if they are purchasing food after 1:30 am.
These contradictions fail to establish a clear contractual agreement, meaning no contract was formed between the driver and ParkingEye.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 3.1.3 sets out strict requirements for signage clarity:
PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(a):
“Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”
• The sign at this location fails to clearly communicate that customers using the drive-thru after 1:30 am will be penalised. A customer arriving at 2:20 am (within the restaurant’s operating hours) would have no reason to suspect they were in breach of any terms.
PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(b):
“Signs must be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach.”
• There is no evidence that ParkingEye has ensured adequate placement of signage in locations where a customer using the drive-thru at 2:20 am would clearly see and understand that they were being penalised simply for using the site during KFC’s business hours.
PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(i):
“Signs must be clear, unambiguous and not use the words ‘penalty’ or ‘fine’, unless there is a statutory requirement to do so.”
• The wording of the signage must be "
clear and unambiguous", yet the contradictions regarding maximum stay duration and enforcement after 1:30 am create uncertainty and ambiguity, making it impossible for the driver to fully understand the terms before entering into a supposed contract.
Since signage clarity is a fundamental requirement, and ParkingEye has failed to meet these obligations, the alleged contract is invalid and unenforceable.
5. Incorrect Allegation – ‘0 Hours and 0 Minutes’ Max Stay Is Illogical and Unenforceable
The PCN states that the vehicle:
“remained in the car park for longer than the 0 hours and 0 minutes max stay time.”
This claim is nonsensical and legally unenforceable because it is based on an impossible condition.
The reason the PCN states "0 hours and 0 minutes" is because, according to the signage, there is no parking allowed between 1:30 am and 6:00 am. However, the signage also explicitly states that the car park is for customers using the site facilities, and the business in question—KFC—was still open and serving customers at 2:20 am, when the driver made their purchase.
This creates an irreconcilable contradiction:
• The sign allows parking for customers using the facilities, which is precisely what the driver was doing.
• The sign prohibits parking between 1:30 am and 6:00 am, despite the business being open and serving customers during this time.
• The PCN alleges that a maximum stay of "0 hours and 0 minutes" applies, which is an illogical and unenforceable concept because it effectively means that no vehicle can stop on-site at all, even for a legitimate transaction.
A prohibition on all parking contradicts the fundamental purpose of a customer-only car park at a business that remains open and expects customers to drive there. If ParkingEye is enforcing a zero-minute stay period, then it is operating the site in a manner that is clearly unfair, disproportionate, and in contradiction of the site's actual use.
As such, a charge issued under this impossible and illogical condition cannot be justified, and the PCN must be cancelled.
6. The Operator Must Provide Evidence of Their Contract With the Landowner Covering Enforcement During Opening Hours
ParkingEye must demonstrate beyond doubt that its contract with the landowner expressly permits enforcement at all times when the restaurant is open, including during the hours of 1:30 am – 3:00 am.
It is entirely possible that the restaurant’s operating hours have changed since the contract was originally signed. If so, but the signage terms have not been updated accordingly, then ParkingEye must provide strict proof of:
• A full unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, detailing the exact terms governing enforcement between 1:30 am – 3:00 am.
• Clear evidence that the landowner specifically authorises ParkingEye to issue PCNs to customers during opening hours—not just during generic “parking control” hours.
• Confirmation that ParkingEye’s contract accounts for the fact that KFC remains open until 3:00 am and that enforcement is permitted even against genuine customers who were still being served at the time of the alleged contravention.
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator.
It is not accepted that ParkingEye has adhered to:
• The landholder’s definitions, exemptions, grace periods, hours of operation, or cancellation policies.
• Any instructions from the landowner to cancel charges due to customer complaints.
• Any restrictions that should have prevented enforcement against a paying customer at a fully operational business.
There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises ParkingEye to issue parking charges at all, or what the land enforcement boundary and contract start/expiry dates are. There is also no evidence that ParkingEye has the legal standing to enforce parking charges in its own name, rather than acting merely as an agent of the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). As ParkingEye does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land,” they must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. This contract—and any site agreement or User Manual—must explicitly set out:
• The extent of ParkingEye’s authority, including whether they have the right to form contracts with drivers or merely issue PCNs as an agent.
• Any exemptions for genuine customers, including whether the landowner, site occupiers, or business tenants (such as KFC) have the right of veto to cancel PCNs.
• The process by which ParkingEye is required to handle complaints from site occupiers and whether they are obliged to cancel charges upon instruction from the landowner or businesses on-site.
ParkingEye cannot rely on a generic witness statement as proof of its authority to enforce parking charges. Witness statements are:
• Often pre-signed, generic documents, not specific to this particular case or location.
• Frequently lacking in detail, failing to outline specific contractual permissions between the landowner and ParkingEye.
• Not sound evidence of the actual agreement or enforcement conditions.
POPLA may sometimes accept a witness statement, but in this case, doing so would be inadequate. Given the clear contradictions between enforcement and KFC’s operating hours, only a full unredacted contract will suffice.
If ParkingEye cannot provide this strict proof, then they lack the necessary legal authority to issue or enforce this PCN, and the charge must be cancelled.
7. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
The charge of £100 (or £20 reduced) is excessive and punitive, given that:
• The Driver was a genuine paying customer,
• The total time on-site was only 13 minutes,
• The restaurant was still open and actively serving customers at the time of the alleged contravention.
The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is not a blanket justification for all private parking charges. In Beavis, the charge was upheld because it was:
1. Prominently displayed and clear – which is not the case here due to conflicting and unclear signage.
2. Serving a legitimate interest in deterring long overstays in a busy retail car park with a free parking period, which is not relevant in this case, as there is no evidence that the charge serves a legitimate purpose when the driver was a paying customer at an open business.
3. Proportionate to the operator’s commercial justification – which fails here because the charge is being imposed on a genuine customer using the facilities in accordance with the sign’s stated purpose.
Unlike in Beavis, where the car park had a high turnover of visitors and a legitimate need for deterrence, the circumstances here do not support ParkingEye’s charge as serving any legitimate purpose. Instead, this charge is being imposed despite the driver following the intended use of the site—using the facilities of a business that was open and trading at the time.
Furthermore, the imposition of a penalty in these circumstances runs contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which prohibits unfair terms in consumer contracts, including those that cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. The Driver could not have reasonably anticipated that they would be penalised for stopping at an open restaurant for 13 minutes.
Thus, the charge in this case is not commercially justified and is therefore unenforceable.
Conclusion
• No original NtK was received, so ParkingEye must provide proof of posting.
• ParkingEye cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.
• The Driver was a paying customer and did not breach the displayed terms.
• The signage is contradictory, and the PCN’s reasoning is illogical.
• ParkingEye must provide their contract with the landowner, proving they have authority to issue PCNs to customers during restaurant opening hours.
• The charge is disproportionate and punitive.[/indent]
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel this PCN.
