Free Traffic Legal Advice

No contract was entered into.

You left after a short consideration period where payment was not possible.

Make an appeal to PE as vehicle keeper.

Do not disclose who was driving.

So the appeal would read, "I understand that the driver attempted to make payment but neither machine was working - after a number of attempts the driver decided to leave and therefore no contract was formed - as such, no contract could have been breached."

No contract was entered into.

You left after a short consideration period where payment was not possible.

Make an appeal to PE as vehicle keeper.

Do not disclose who was driving.

So the appeal would read, "I understand that the driver attempted to make payment but neither machine was working - after a number of attempts the driver decided to leave and therefore no contract was formed - as such, no contract could have been breached."

Now received this:

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 179816/897692

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 14 June
2026 at 13:46, at Lido 2, Margate CT9 1RX 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 and pass this notice to them, or alternatively, you as the Registered Keeper,
are invited to pay the Parking Charge.
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 Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454
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.
Evidence can be uploaded via our website by visiting; or
sent by post to the below address. We strongly recommend that only copies of evidence
are sent to us, as we will be unable to return original documentation if this is sent via post.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by
visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye Ltd,
PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.
Yours faithfully,

Parkingeye Team

Hi all,

Just an update and I'd be grateful for any advice before I submit my POPLA appeal.

ParkingEye have now rejected my keeper appeal and issued a POPLA code.

The relevant part of their rejection states:

"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."

That is the only point they make. They have not addressed what I actually said in my appeal.

To recap the facts:

Vehicle entered Lido 2, Margate.
Total ANPR time on site was approximately 10 minutes.
Driver intended to park and pay.
One payment machine was completely out of service.
The other machine repeatedly failed to accept card payment despite several attempts.
The driver did not have a smartphone capable of paying by app.
As payment could not be made, the driver left the site.
No photographs of the faulty machines were taken as the driver assumed leaving after only around 10 minutes would not result in a charge.

ParkingEye have not produced any evidence that the payment machines were working. They simply say "payment methods were available".

My intention for POPLA is to argue:

No contract was formed because the driver attempted to pay, could not do so, and left.
The driver left within a reasonable consideration period.
ParkingEye has failed to produce any evidence that the payment machines were operational (maintenance logs, fault reports or transaction logs).
ParkingEye should be put to strict proof of landowner authority.

Does that sound like the right approach?

Also, I have seen suggestions that ParkingEye's contract/authority at this site may have expired or changed. Is there any evidence of that, or is it just forum speculation? If there is anything concrete I would obviously include it in the POPLA appeal.

Many thanks for any advice.

They may well say that 10 minutes exceeds the consideration period but that is in a scenario where payment machines were available and working.

In a scenario where payment machines were not working it is perfectly reasonable that this 'consideration period' be extended.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a5784276d6d5c7e2845ca02/open_letter.pdf

Scroll down to paragraph 17.