Hi everyone, putting this under my original post and hoping someone with more knowledge than me can proof read my appeal to POPLA regarding the PCNs I received from ParkingEye. I must admit that I used AI to write all of it, I'm not very knowledgable about the law, nor do I think my writing is up to standard. I've also attached some pictures and screenshots I will be sending with the appeal. Appreciate anyone that can give me some feedback.
POPLA Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice
Operator: ParkingEye Ltd
PCN Reference: [INSERT PCN NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [INSERT VRM]
Appellant: Registered Keeper
1. Inadequate and misleading signage — failure to communicate material permit requirements
The operator has failed to demonstrate that all terms and conditions were clearly, prominently, and transparently communicated to motorists at the point of parking.
The signage at the site directed motorists to apply for a parking permit via a specific website. The appellant followed these instructions exactly and in full. Upon completing the application through the advertised portal, the appellant was presented with confirmation that the permit had been accepted and was valid until January 2027. A screenshot of this confirmation is provided as supporting evidence.
At no point did the signage make any reference to a requirement to create or maintain a separate "Evology" account, nor to any additional administrative step beyond applying through the advertised website. This requirement — which the operator now asserts is a condition of permit validity — is entirely absent from the signage. A motorist cannot be bound by a material term that was never communicated to them. The alleged contract is therefore defective and unenforceable.
This constitutes a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires that all material conditions are clearly displayed and that drivers are able to understand how to comply before deciding to park.
2. No valid contract formed due to incomplete and uncertain terms
For a contract to be validly formed, its terms must be certain, complete, and capable of acceptance by a reasonable person. That standard is not met here.
The appellant completed every step the signage required and received confirmation that the permit was valid. The operator now relies on an additional condition — registration on a separate backend system — that was not disclosed on the signage, not referenced anywhere on the permit application website, and not apparent from the confirmation screen shown to the appellant. Permit validity therefore depended on information withheld from the motorist at the time of parking. No enforceable contract can arise from terms that were never communicated, and the ANPR evidence relied upon by the operator does nothing to establish otherwise — it records entry and exit times only, and cannot demonstrate that a driver was in breach of terms they had no means of knowing about.
3. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
ParkingEye Ltd operates as a BPA Approved Operator and is bound by the BPA Code of Practice, which requires that all material terms are prominently displayed, that drivers are clearly informed of how to comply, and that terms are not misleading or incomplete. A requirement to maintain an active account on two separate systems, where signage references only one and makes no mention of the other, is neither prominent nor intelligible. POPLA has consistently held that where signage fails to communicate all material conditions of a permit scheme, enforcement is not justified.
4. Good faith compliance and circumstances of delayed awareness
The appellant is an authorised gym member with a legitimate right to use the car park. Upon being informed by gym staff of the alleged Evology requirement, the appellant immediately created the required account and has been fully compliant since. No further PCNs have been issued. This conduct is wholly inconsistent with deliberate non-compliance and demonstrates that the issue arose entirely from unclear and incomplete instructions, not from any disregard for parking conditions. The appellant also did not exceed the permitted 5-hour parking allowance on any of the occasions in question, meaning no substantive breach of the parking agreement occurred in any practical sense.
5. No legitimate interest justifying enforcement
Unlike the circumstances considered in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, this is not a case involving overstaying, misuse of finite parking capacity, or conduct warranting commercial deterrence. The vehicle was parked by an authorised user, within normal usage parameters, and any alleged breach concerns a hidden administrative requirement that was absent from all signage. Enforcing a charge in these circumstances serves no legitimate commercial interest. It would instead penalise a motorist for complying precisely with the process the operator itself advertised.
Note regarding related appeals
This appeal is one of five submitted in respect of PCNs issued at the same car park, arising from the same circumstances and the same inadequacy in the operator's signage and permit communication. The appellant respectfully requests that POPLA considers all five appeals consistently, as they raise identical grounds.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to demonstrate clear and complete signage, a valid contractual offer, compliance with the BPA Code of Practice, or any substantive breach of the parking agreement. The Parking Charge Notice was issued without proper contractual basis and the appeal should be allowed and the charge cancelled in full.
