Free Traffic Legal Advice

I entered the site on 26th April purely to look for a parking space of which there was none. However, due to severe congestion and the layout of the car park, I was unable to exit promptly. The area had effectively become gridlocked, with vehicles obstructing movement in multiple directions. There appeared to be no clear one-way system or traffic management in place, which contributed significantly to the blockage and confusion.

At one stage, I had vehicles both in front of and behind me, preventing any possibility of movement or exit. At no point did I intentionally park the vehicle or leave it unattended. The delay was entirely the result of the traffic situation within the car park, which was completely outside of my control.

I entered the site at 14:33:42 and left the car park at 14:44:03 so a total of 10 minutes and 21 seconds.

Any delay was caused solely by the inability to move freely within the car park itself.

 I've appealed to landowner who has said they lease it to Parking Eye and can't (likely don't want to) do anything.

I've not appealed yet as the Parking Eye online appeals process asks for a name and whether I'm the driver, registered keeper or other.

The date of the pcn issued is 1st May 2026 but this did not arrive until 9th May.

Below are images of the PCN, an image of the parking terms on site which i found online and screenshot of the online appeals process.











https://ibb.co/PzcnByjy

https://ibb.co/vxL6R9Mg

Please advise. Ive seen the template on this forum and wish to know how to use that on online appeals process or is it worth adding the gridlocked nature of my predicament on the day. I have no dashcam footage

Ok how's this as a response:

I am writing to formally appeal Parking Charge Notice reference **** relating to vehicle registration ****, with ANPR timestamps recorded at **14:44:03** and **14:44:42** on Sunday 26th April at the VHK Southall car park.

The allegation that the vehicle was “parked” is wholly inaccurate and unsupported by the evidence provided.

The ANPR images merely show the vehicle entering and exiting the site. They do not demonstrate that any parking took place, that a parking space was occupied, or that any parking terms were accepted or breached.

The vehicle entered the site solely for the purpose of attempting to locate an available parking space. However, no parking spaces were available. Due to significant congestion within the car park, vehicles became obstructed in multiple directions and movement through the site was severely restricted.

At various points, vehicles were positioned both in front of and behind the vehicle, preventing immediate exit. The car park appeared gridlocked, exacerbated by a lack of clear traffic flow or one-way management.

To be absolutely clear:

* No parking space was occupied at any stage
* No occupant exited the vehicle
* The vehicle was never left unattended
* The vehicle remained in transit throughout the duration recorded

Remaining temporarily within a congested car park while attempting to locate a space, before ultimately exiting due to the absence of availability, does not constitute “parking.” No reasonable interpretation of the circumstances could conclude otherwise.

Furthermore, the timestamps themselves demonstrate a very short period between entry and exit, entirely consistent with a vehicle attempting to find a space before leaving due to the absence of available parking.

Given the above, this Parking Charge Notice has been issued unfairly and without proper consideration of the actual circumstances. I therefore request that the notice be cancelled immediately.

Please also note that no assumptions should be made as to the identity of the driver, and no such admissions are made within this appeal.

I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been resolved.

Personally I'd cut the waffle and keep it brief. The driver wasn't able to find a space and was unable to leave quickly as the site was congested.

They won't know there was a problem on site when the driver was there so as far as they are concerned the driver broke the rules.

All the stuff about entry and exit images isn't going to make any difference for a first appeal, that's how ANPR enforcement works.  You'll get someone on minimum wage assessing your initial appeal, make it easy for them to grant it, don't hide a half decent appeal reason amongst a load of legal waffle, they will just gloss over it.

As advised I kept it short and sweet. Got this response via email and told me to appeal to POPLA. Any advice here please as not sure what would be the best grounds to appeal on especially as I've got no dashcam footage

Same grounds for POPLA appeal, but you may want to read and quote from https://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/download/Parking%20Eye%20Ltd%20Case%20No%203JD08399%20judgement.pdf

It seems to me a customer who enters that car park, cannot find a space and leaves
the car park is not aware that if they are doing that for more than 20 minutes they
are liable to a charge. It seems to me that the signage makes it clear that if you
park you are liable to pay a charge.
The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was
parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities.
On that balance of probabilities, as I have indicated, I am satisfied the Defendant
was not parked and I am not satisfied that it was clear to the Defendants that by
parking or entering or remaining within the area covered by Parking Eye Ltd they
were liable for a charge, that the signage does not make that clear in my view
unless one gets out of the car, walks up to it, by which point it seems to me one
would be parked, and even if this was not the case, even if there were signs saying
that, I cannot see that a charge for driving around a car park can in any way be a
genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.

From

3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of loss.
In an important case, the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.

Whatever POPLA decides, this is extremely unlikely to actually go to court because clearly it would be thrown out if it did. If Parking Eye engage DCB Legal in due course, know that they do so for cases they’re not confident about winning, and the process is designed to intimidate you into paying, and DCB Legal usually discontinue at the eleventh hour, before having to pay the court fee.