Welcome. You have several strong points you can raise in an appeal against this Parking Charge Notice (PCN). These points relate to unclear signage, failure to identify the parking operator, and breaches of consumer protection law and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). You are not obliged to identify the driver, and you should only appeal as the registered keeper.
However, you need to be aware that as BaySentry are an IPC member, this will not be concluded with any appeals. An initial appeal will be rejected (but we do make one to initiate the process) and we do not recommend wasting time on an IAS secondary appeal as it is a rigged process and extremely unlikely to be successful.
The only way this will end is after they try to scare you with useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. You simply ignore any debt recovery letters. Nothing will happen.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from whichever bulk litigation company they decide to use. We will advise on the next steps and provide a suitable response. In due course you will receive an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we advise on all the steps and provide a suitable defence.
There whole process is a protracted affair, designed to wear you down. It is likely to be anything from 9 months to over a year before they give up. The odds of this ever getting as far as a hearing in court is minuscule. In the end, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
It is a good learning experience for you and also very satisfying when they give up and you realise that it has cost them money and not a penny from you. Are you up for the fight?
Here are some of the reasons why you would have a good defence, even though we don't use them in the initial appeal:
1. The sign near the Blue Badge bays says “Free parking for up to 3 hours” in large, bold letters. This is the most eye-catching part of the sign and could easily lead someone to believe that no further action is needed. The requirement to validate the parking is only mentioned underneath in much smaller text, and the warning about a PCN is smaller still. This is a breach of Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that terms must be both transparent and prominent. Schedule 2 of the same Act gives examples of unfair terms, including ones that are hidden in small print or not properly brought to the consumer’s attention. If a condition is important enough to trigger a £100 charge, it must be displayed clearly — and in this case, it simply isn’t.
2. The PCN was issued by BaySentry, but the sign only mentions CitiPark. There is no mention of BaySentry anywhere on the sign, and no explanation that they are the party enforcing the terms or issuing PCNs. Clause 3.1.3(c) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that all signs displaying the terms and conditions must include the name and contact details of the parking operator. That means the actual company issuing the PCNs must be named on the sign. Here, they are not. This creates confusion about who the contract is actually with and whether the correct legal entity is enforcing the charge. Under contract law, a contract cannot be formed if the party issuing it is not identified.
3. Beyond the missing operator name, the layout of the sign fails other parts of the PPSCoP. Clause 3.1.6 says that any term which could result in a charge (like the validation requirement) must be given sufficient prominence. The instruction to validate should have been displayed in a font size or style that draws attention to it. Here, the most important term is hidden in smaller text, and the possible consequence (a PCN) is even harder to spot. For a first-time user, especially someone focused on supporting a disabled person or attending an event, it is easy to miss this. That makes the sign misleading and non-compliant with the Code.
4. This was the driver’s first time visiting the location. They were not familiar with the need to validate and made a genuine mistake. They did not intend to evade any terms, and once they became aware of the issue, they returned to inspect the signage. While this is not a legal defence, it is useful mitigation and demonstrates that the failure was not deliberate.
The vehicle is a Motability scheme vehicle. You can supply a PDF from the DVLA View Vehicle Record to confirm this. This supports the point that the driver or user was likely disabled and should have been protected by reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Failing to make the validation requirement clear could constitute indirect discrimination.
5. Because BaySentry is a member of the IPC, not the BPA, you will not be able to appeal to POPLA. Instead, they will direct you to the so-called Independent Appeals Service (IAS). However, the IAS is not a statutory or genuinely independent body. It is funded by the IPC and overwhelmingly finds in favour of operators. Submitting an appeal to the IAS is widely regarded as an exercise in futility. You should expect that any initial appeal to BaySentry will be rejected, and any attempt to appeal to the IAS will be unsuccessful, no matter how strong your arguments are.
As mentioned, the reality is that resolving this issue is likely to be a protracted process. The real opportunity to defend yourself properly will come if and when a county court claim is issued. At that point, you will be able to present all the legal arguments outlined above — including the signage issues, lack of operator identification, non-compliance with consumer protection laws, and procedural unfairness — to a judge. Not that it is remotely likely to ever get that far.
For now, I advise you appeal to BaySentry, only as the Keeper with the following:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice on the grounds that the signage at the location is misleading, fails to identify the operator, and does not comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice or relevant consumer legislation.
The sign near the Blue Badge bays states “Free parking for up to 3 hours” in large bold text. This is clearly intended to be the key message, and a reasonable person would assume that no further action is required. The statement that parking must be validated is written below in much smaller text, and the warning that failure to validate may result in a parking charge is even smaller. These are the most important terms, yet they are not given adequate prominence. This is a clear breach of Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that any key terms must be both transparent and prominent. Schedule 2 of the same Act also lists examples of unfair terms, including those that are hidden in small print.
In addition, the signage does not identify BaySentry as the parking operator. The sign only refers to CitiPark, with no mention of BaySentry at all. Clause 3.1.3(c) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that the name and contact details of the parking operator must be included on signage that sets out the terms and conditions. This omission is significant. A contract cannot be formed if the other party is not clearly identified. This casts doubt on whether BaySentry has any contractual authority to issue this Parking Charge Notice.
Clause 3.1.6 of the Code also requires that any term which may trigger a charge must be displayed with sufficient prominence. In this case, the validation requirement and the risk of a PCN are not presented clearly or prominently, especially in comparison to the large and attractive promise of “Free parking for up to 3 hours.”
The driver was unfamiliar with this site, as it was their first visit. They parked in a marked Blue Badge bay and correctly displayed a valid Blue Badge, a copy of which can be provided. The vehicle may also be registered under the Motability scheme. The driver made a genuine mistake by not seeing the validation requirement, and there was no intention to avoid any conditions. This is not a case of deliberate non-compliance, but of unclear signage causing confusion.
The driver has a disability, and the signage fails to account for the needs of disabled users. Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments. One such adjustment is ensuring that important information is presented clearly enough to be understood by all users, including those with cognitive or visual impairments. Burying the key condition in small print is not consistent with those duties.
As the registered keeper, I am not obliged to name the driver and I do not do so. On the basis of the issues above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
