Please stop "quoting" whole chunks of previous replies. They just make reading this very tedious.
Do not wait to send the initial appeal to ParkingEye. Just get it sent, using email or their web portal if necessary. What you need to get is their rejection with a POPLA code. You will use your photographic evidence for that appeal, together with the most fundamental point that you cannot be liable if the driver is not identified.
Your evidence of the state of the car park at night is very good and will come in useful later. However, please confirm that the copy of the PCN dated 27/11/2025 is actually addressed to you. Also, please confirm whether there were copies of a statement signed by or on behalf of the Enterprise to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to you under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by you under that hire agreement.
Based on what you have described and the evidence you have gathered, your signage and lighting evidence is very strong, and it goes well beyond a typical “poor signage” argument. Even if a POPLA appeal were not successful (which can happen even where the underlying case is sound), this is exactly the sort of evidence that would cause a claimant serious difficulty in court.
The key point is not simply what the sign says in daylight, but whether any alleged contractual terms were capable of being brought to the Driver’s attention at the time. You have clear evidence that the car park was effectively unlit. It was dark by the time the vehicle entered, the area was “pitch black”, and photographs taken later show that none of the signs are visible without using a torch or night-mode camera. That is fatal to the idea of contract formation. A driver cannot accept terms that they cannot see, read, or reasonably be expected to know about. In court, a judge will look at the real-world conditions at the time, not at a neatly photographed sign taken in ideal lighting.
The ANPR images help you rather than them. They show only number plates and confirm the absence of usable lighting. There is no contemporaneous evidence from ParkingEye showing that any sign was readable at the material time. That leaves them unable to prove that the terms were adequately communicated before or during the alleged parking period.
The entrance sign point is also important. You have explained that the sign is on the right-hand side of the entrance, the Driver turned left, did not stop at the entrance, and could not safely stop there in any event. In darkness, with no lighting, that sign simply cannot be relied upon as a contractual “offer”. If the operator’s case depends on an entrance sign, they must show that it was positioned, illuminated and readable so that a driver could reasonably be expected to see and understand it. Your evidence points in the opposite direction.
There is a further structural problem for them in the wording of the sign itself. It is headed “Customer Only Car Park” and repeatedly states that parking is for Holy Family Church patrons only. That is not an open offer to the world; it is permission-based and class-restricted. In court, this supports the argument that the sign does not offer parking on terms to non-patrons at all. If there is no offer, there can be no contract. At most, they would be alleging trespass, which a private parking company has no standing to pursue as a contractual charge.
Finally, the short duration and purpose of the stop reinforces your position. The vehicle was present for just over ten minutes while the Driver sorted out sat nav directions. Even if ParkingEye tries to characterise that as “parking”, they would still have to prove that, within that brief period and in pitch-black conditions, the Driver saw, read and accepted the terms. Your photos make that proposition highly implausible.
Taken together, this is the sort of evidence that courts take seriously. POPLA can sometimes get things wrong or apply a very narrow view of signage, but a judge will assess credibility, lighting conditions, visibility and common sense. On the evidence you have, ParkingEye would be taking a significant risk by litigating. If they were stupid enough to try, they would be facing a very uncomfortable time explaining how an unlit car park, unreadable signage and a patrons-only sign could ever have formed a binding contract in the circumstances you describe.
You should also send the following to Enterprise and do not let them charge you their £35 admin fee unless they can evidence that PCNs from unregulated private parking firms fall under their "fines and penalties" clause:
Subject: Your “traffic violation/ fine/issuing authority” email re ParkingEye – incorrect, misleading, and not accepted
Dear Enterprise Traffic Violations Team,
I write as the Hirer in respect of your attachment dated 24 November 2025 (reference: [ENTERPRISE REF]) concerning an allegation by ParkingEye at Holy Family Church, Sale.
Your correspondence is riddled with inaccurate terminology and misleading statements. ParkingEye is not an “issuing authority”. This is not a “traffic violation”, “citation”, or “fine”. There is no “offence”. There is no police process. ParkingEye is an unregulated private parking firm issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which is, in plain English, a speculative invoice alleging a breach of civil contract terms on private land.
Accordingly:
1. Do not misstate liability. Your email asserts “we are notifying you of your liability.” That is not your determination to make, and it is plainly wrong in the context of a private parking invoice. Liability (if any) is disputed and depends on contract, signage, and evidence.
2. Stop referring to “re-issuing a fine” and “reduced amounts”. ParkingEye cannot “re-issue a fine”. If anything is sent to me, it would be a Notice to Hirer/PCN as part of a civil claim process, not a statutory enforcement process.
3. You have no basis to mention the Police. Your paragraph about “speeding offences” and responding to Police is irrelevant, inappropriate, and suggests your process is a copy-and-paste template applied without care. This matter is labelled “PARKING” and relates to ParkingEye.
4. Do not pay ParkingEye. To be clear: you are not authorised to make any payment to ParkingEye in my name. You must not treat a private parking invoice as if it were a penalty or fine.
5. Administration fee disputed. You state you “will attempt to charge the card” an administration fee of £35. I dispute that any fee is due in circumstances where you have demonstrated fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the allegation and have provided no proper documentation.
If you take any payment, I require (as a minimum) a full itemised justification and the precise contractual clause you rely upon, together with evidence that the clause is fair and applicable to a private parking invoice.
6. Provide documents and confirm what you have done. Please provide by return:
a. A copy of the actual ParkingEye notice you received (all pages).
b. Confirmation of the date you received it.
c. Confirmation of exactly what you have provided to ParkingEye (and on what date).
d. Confirmation that you have not paid ParkingEye and will not do so.
Given the above, your email will not be treated as anything other than an incompetent, generic template wrongly describing a civil parking invoice as a statutory enforcement matter. I require written confirmation within 7 days that your records have been corrected and that no payment will be made to ParkingEye.
Yours faithfully,
[HIRER NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[RENTAL AGREEMENT/CONTRACT NUMBER]
[VEHICLE REG]
[ENTERPRISE REFERENCE]
