Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear ParkingEye,

This is a formal complaint regarding your handling of Parking Charge [insert reference].

A timely appeal was submitted by the Keeper. No response was received. You failed to issue a Notice of Rejection and failed to provide a POPLA code. This is a breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Your failure has denied the Keeper access to Alternative Dispute Resolution, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

You have now issued a Letter of Claim. This is premature and procedurally defective. You are attempting to escalate to litigation without exhausting the required appeal and ADR process.

The rebuttable presumption of service under CPR 6.26 is challenged. You are put to strict proof that any Notice of Rejection was properly addressed, posted, and served. The Keeper received no correspondence until the Letter of Claim.

You are required to:

• Suspend the Letter of Claim immediately.
• Re-issue the Notice of Rejection.
• Provide a valid POPLA code to enable the Keeper to appeal.
• Confirm compliance with the PPSCoP and provide evidence of service.

Failure to comply will result in escalation to the DVLA and the BPA for breach of the PPSCoP and unlawful use of keeper data under your KADOE contract.

This complaint does not constitute an admission of liability. All rights are reserved.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

[PCN Reference]

Dear Mr xxxx,

 

We note your submission that you appealed the Parking Charge and received no reply.

 

Parkingeye can confirm that we received an appeal on 30/05/2025 and a response advising you that your appeal had been unsuccessful and providing you a code to lodge a further appeal to POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals) was sent to the email address provided on 30/05/2025 (please see attached).

 

It is not within Parkingeye’s interest to fail to respond to motorist correspondence as it is preferable to resolve these matters prior to any legal action being taken.

 

Furthermore, we operate a dedicated appeals team and each appeal is dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

It is Parkingeye’s position that the time for a POPLA appeal to be lodged has now passed and it is noted that you failed to lodged a further appeal in response to the letter we issued on 30/05/2025, which rejected your appeal. This letter contained a POPLA verification code.

 

Parkingeye stipulates that any internal appeal must be made within 28 days, which is in line with the Single Code of Practice (para 8.4), and when Parkingeye rejected your appeal, a POPLA code was provided. This code expired after a further 28 days, so the time for a POPLA appeal has now passed.

 

Once legal action is taken, POPLA is no longer a suitable method of ADR. POPLA does not take into account legal costs incurred and POPLA decisions are not binding upon the motorist, so it is not guaranteed that such an appeal would resolve this matter.

 

However, there are alternate methods of ADR that Parkingeye remains open to, such as using the Small Claims Mediation Service and/or direct mediation. Such correspondence can be processed via post or email and Parkingeye remain open to considering any correspondence provided in this manner. Please ensure any such correspondence is clearly marked ‘without prejudice’.

 

We note from your reply to our Letter Before Claim that you dispute the outstanding sum. We can confirm that we have now reviewed your correspondence but it is our position that the Parking Charge remains due.

 

We can confirm that £130 remains outstanding and that full payment is required within the next 14 days to prevent further action. We are prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, further costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitors costs referred to within the Letter Before Claim.

 

If you wish to make payment, you can do so by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.Parkingeye.co.uk, or by posting a cheque/postal order to the below address. Please note that you must quote the above Parking Charge reference on the reverse of the cheque or postal order.

I appeal on the following grounds.

1. Inadequate signage (BPA AOS Code of Practice v9, Feb 2024)
Whilst there is an estate entrance sign, there were no ParkingEye terms-and-conditions signs between that entrance and the forecourt outside the launderette where the vehicle was parked, nor any readable from the parked position. My walkthrough video shows no operator T&Cs or charge amount at or near the bays used.

BPA CoP v9 requires specific parking-terms signs placed throughout the site so that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking/leaving the vehicle; signs must be conspicuous, legible and intelligible (§19.3). With no T&Cs signage at or near the bays, the core terms (including any charge) were neither accessible nor prominent, so no contract could be formed.

2. Lack of transparency / unfair terms (Consumer Rights Act 2015)

Any price/charge term must be transparent and prominent (CRA ss.62, 64(2), 68). No parking charge or key terms were visible or prominent at the relevant location. Enforcing an undisclosed/inaccessible term fails transparency and prominence.

3. Landowner authority and site boundary (PPSCoP v1.1, §14.1(a–j))

ParkingEye is put to strict proof that, on 28/04/2025, it held a valid, contemporaneous, unredacted, written agreement flowing from the landowner. The operator must produce either (i) the full, unredacted contract, or (ii) if relying on a letter of authority, that letter must itself expressly confirm each and every requirement in PPSCoP v1.1 §14.1(a–j). This includes, without limitation, the landowner’s identity, the precise extent of the controlled land (with a boundary/plan), the terms/charge regime permitted, responsibility for and approval of signage (with a sign/location schedule), and express authority to issue and pursue parking charges and legal proceedings in the operator’s own name for the material period. Generic, redacted, templated or out-of-date documents (or witness statements) are not sufficient.

4. Consideration and grace periods (PPSCoP v1.1 §5.1–§5.2 and Annex B) — applied to the facts

The PPSCoP prohibits enforcement unless a driver has first had a reasonable consideration period to locate a bay, identify and read the terms, and decide whether to accept them or leave. Annex B sets minimum timings, which only start to run once a driver encounters a readable T&Cs sign.

At this site there were no T&Cs signs anywhere between the estate entrance and the forecourt outside the launderette, and none readable from the parked position (see video/stills). Because no T&Cs were available to read at or near the bay, the consideration period never began and no contract could be accepted. ANPR timestamps at an estate entrance cannot evidence the start of a parking contract or the expiry of a consideration period where the operator failed to place any T&Cs signage at the relevant location.

Accordingly, enforcing a charge here is improper under §5.1–§5.2 and Annex B. ParkingEye must strictly prove where the nearest readable T&Cs sign was in relation to the bay used and that, after the driver could first read those terms, at least the Annex B minimum consideration time elapsed before enforcement. They cannot do so on this evidence.

5. Operator maladministration — relevance to evidence and weight (context to this appeal)

The operator misaddressed the rejection/POPLA code (copy attached). This proven addressing error is directly relevant to evidential weight and case management. I ask the Assessor to:

(i) admit all of my evidence without adverse inference about timing, because timely ADR was denied by the operator’s error;
(ii) require strict proof of any communication the operator claims to have sent (including headers/logs for emails, and proof of correct addressing/service), and place reduced weight on bare assertions; and
(iii) approach the operator’s evidence (including any unsigned/redacted templates) with appropriate caution given this demonstrated administrative inaccuracy.

Conclusion

Given the absence of required T&Cs signage under BPA CoP v9, the lack of transparent/prominent terms (CRA), the consideration/grace requirements, and the lack of strict proof of landowner authority meeting PPSCoP §14.1(a–j), I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.