Think I've messed up parking eye

Kimberalex

This is an appeal for the parking charge ref:123456789 license plate:abcd date:10th julember 2025

The appeal is in regards to 6 different points

1) time overstayed was due to a breastfeeding mother feeding baby during the overstayed time. Parking eye have already been notified in the appeal that a baby was being breastfed leading to the over stay, parking eye have ignored the equal rights act of 2010

THE EQUAL RIGHTS ACT 2010 has specifically clarified that it id unlawful for a business to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding a child.

2)The sign displaying terms and conditions is not clearly displayed, the terms are in very small writing and not clearly readable, so therefore not sufficient to form a contract.

There is no mention of using DVLA plate recognition this sign (photograph supplied as evidence) is the only sign throughout the whole, small car park.

3)The BPA Code of Practice requires that additional time upon entry and further time upon exit, is to be allowed. It is wholly unreasonable and a breach of the CPUTRs (misleading action) for ParkingEye to ignore their industry code, which states re grace periods:

Prior to parking:-

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

Upon returning to the vehicle:-

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.

4) length of time the parking charge notice was given. After appealing to parking eye that the driver was not the registered keeper AND a breastfeeding mother feeding her baby it took 3 weeks for them to issue another parking charge notice.

5)I would like parking eye to provide proof they can issue charges on behalf of the landowner- I have already contacted the landowner who had said

"This car park is operated by Parking Eye, and we have no control over who tickets are issued to, nor do we receive any money from the tickets."

Kimberalex

The time says that I was over by 14 minutes on this letter

Kimberalex

[IMG][/img]

Kimberalex

[IMG][/img]

Both signs t&c are so small you cannot read them

Kimberalex

I do need to tweak it as my oh took these photos and there is a few signs about I just didn't see this one outside the shop door

catfunt

Couple of things to note while we wait for one of the experts to take a look...
You need to refer to the Equality Act in point 1.

Point 2 - I think you mean ANPR. DVLA relates to where PE get details from. ANPR is the system that reads the plates.

Point 5 probably needs beefing up, I think... the quote from the landowner may not be helpful there.

Have a look at the POPLA appeal in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5366576

Post #8 in that thread contains a POPLA appeal - have a look at Point 4 in that one.

Also look at Point 8 (Signage) in that appeal that you could plagiarise to help beef up your point 2.

Add a point about ANPR accuracy from that appeal - this is relevent if you were only 14 mins over according to their system.

I'm sure others will be along to advise further.

Coupon-mad

Yep if you can make those changes then re-post the draft, we'll have another look when we can.

No rush to submit it yet I assume, you have 28 days from rejection letter/POPLA code generation.

Kimberalex

I'm struggling to find specific points in the equality act 2010 for the breastfeeding it's all so confusing

Kimberalex

This is an appeal for the parking charge ref:123456789 license plate:abcd date:10th julember 2025

The appeal is in regards to 6 different points


As advised to Parking Eye to them in the appeal, the driver on the day was a breastfeeding mother as such is a person with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and is legally entitled to use when needed, a 'reasonable adjustment' such as, in this case, additional time to feed their baby.


Parking Eye have been informed and have chosen to ignore this fact in continuing to pursue the registered keeper for payment of this ‘Parking Charge Notice’. This is a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.

ParkingEye have refused to acknowledge the driver has a 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act 2010. A service provider which refuses to make a 'reasonable adjustment' without lawful justification is in breach of their mandatory duties under the following statutory Code:

The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (which became law in April 2011):
14.58 Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.
5.4 Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
5.34 In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.

I would remind the POPLA assessor that POPLA is also a 'service provider' to the public and has broadly the same duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the Operator and landowner/occupier client. The Chief Adjudicator will no doubt be familiar with these regulations and I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA Assessors, are trained in this law and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals

2)No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Parking Eye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

3) Unfair terms of contract

Although there is no contract between Parking Eye and the driver (or myself), if there were then I would ask POPLA to consider this charge to be unfair and non-binding based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is a clear list of terms that apply. I have highlighted the following specifically as I believe they apply directly to this case:

2. (1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

5. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one ParkingEye Ltd are suggesting. A company such as Parking Eye needs to actually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms, which is impossible because this did not actually happen.

4) Without a contract

Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award ParkingEye Ltd could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to car park there was no loss to them at all and therefore should be no charge.


I require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for Parking Eye merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
’18.1.3 Objections are less likely…if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

An unlit sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from ‘transparent’.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.” Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer”.

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: “A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
ParkingEye’s ANPR records show no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of ‘parking time’ as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that evening.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common “time synchronisation system”, there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so “live” is not really “live”. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR “evidence” from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.



6) length of time the parking charge notice was given. After appealing to parking eye that the driver was not the registered keeper AND a breastfeeding mother feeding her baby it took 3 weeks for them to issue another parking charge notice.


7)Lack of standing/authority from landowner

Parking Eye has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Parking Eye to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Parking Eye have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Parking Eye are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for Parking Eye merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.


8)signage

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ”Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness…when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved…by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit…should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads”.
I ask that parking eye prove this other wise.

Coupon-mad

You certainly need some tweaks:

- you have two points #4

- there is no point #1

- the point about ANPR is really long and from a very old example, not a very good example either.

- you have two points about unfair terms wich need amalgamating and you need to change 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' to the 'Consumer Rights Act 2015' because on 1st October the unfair terms in consumer contracts laws were updated.

- you don't appear to ahve any point at all about 'no GPEOL nor commercial justification - this case differs from the PE v Beavis case...' which you will find in recent examples linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

This point (below) makes no sense to me:

6) length of time the parking charge notice was given. After appealing to parking eye that the driver was not the registered keeper AND a breastfeeding mother feeding her baby it took 3 weeks for them to issue another parking charge notice.

...do you mean you actually named the driver who was then sent their own PCN? Why? And if so, then why is the POPLA appeal full of stuff like: 'I wasn't driving'? Who is appealing this, the keeper or the driver? I'm confused by that.