It’s always worth challenging a parking charge if you believe it was issued unfairly. Why should you pay a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company simply because they offer a discounted rate for early payment?
Signage is a key argument to raise. While appealing on signage grounds may or may not succeed at POPLA, it's important to remember that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.
The most likely outcome, if you choose to fight, is that the operator may eventually issue a county court claim. However, well-defended claims are often struck out or discontinued before reaching a hearing. Even if the case does proceed to court, there is a reasonable chance of success for a properly prepared defence.
You must decide whether to stand your ground—with a slight risk of paying around £200 if ultimately unsuccessful—or to pay nothing, gain valuable knowledge about your rights, and know that the operator likely spent more pursuing the charge than you did defending it. Alternatively, you could give in and pay the so-called 'mugs discount' rate, effectively rewarding the operator for their conduct.
In this case, the signage is poor and appears designed to entrap. You may wish to refer to what Lord Denning said in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, which introduced the "Red Hand Rule."
This principle states that the more onerous a term in a contract, the more prominent it must be. It should be brought to the attention of the motorist in a striking way—figuratively, with a red hand pointing to it. In this situation, the key term—that parking is prohibited outside certain hours and incurs a charge—ought to be clearly highlighted. Instead, the signage emphasises the '2 hours free parking' offer, drawing attention away from the penalty conditions.
