We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye Warrington Central
Options
Comments
-
Nothing back from POPLA yet, just an acknowledgement email with no dates. Anyone know how long it usually takes?0
-
Success! I hadn't spotted it but the tariffs on the signs were different to the tariffs in the landowner agreement. Full summary below and I'll put this in the decision thread:
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Sophie Taylor
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a 16-page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • There is no identification of land being under the management of ParkingEye, there is no distinction of it being separate to an adjacent car park. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • There is no evidence of authority from the landowner. • The operator does not have planning permission for its signs or ANPR cameras. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply. • The operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the site in question. The operator has provided a document of its agreement to manage the car park. Reviewing this, I can see the tariffs stated are different to the tariffs on the signage. As such, I am not satisfied this is sufficient to show the up to date authority to manage the land in question. While it is possible there may have been amendments to the agreement, I cannot make this assumption. The operator has not provided any explanation as to why the tariffs differ on the agreement to on the signage. As such, I cannot be satisfied this evidence is sufficient to give them authority to impose the terms stated on the signs. As such, I must conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.0 -
Hi mjm87.
Great to hear of your success vs Parking Eye at Warrington Central.
In an almost identical case to yourself, my wife fell victim to the inadequate Parking Eye signage at Warrington Central in 2017 and bought a ticket from the APCOA machine (the only machine visible from where she was parked) in good faith that she had paid for her short stay.
She subsequently submitted an unsuccessful POPLA appeal and went on to receive an LBCCC. We returned the LBCCC reply form to Parking Eye after which no further correspondence was received (since the beginning of June 2018).
Last Friday, more than 12 months later, she received a County Court Claim Form. We now have to build her defence.
If at all possible would you mind sending me your POPLA/Parking Eye case number in order for us to include evidence of as many successful appeals at this car park as possible?
I have searched the forum for other cases at Warrington Central but cannot find any that have made it all the way to court so I am hoping successful POPLA appellants such as yourself may be able to help us build our defence.
Unfortunately I was not aware of this brilliant forum at the time of our POPLA appeal otherwise my wife could have won her appeal on exactly the same grounds as yourself. To this day we have not seen a witness statement or landowner contract from Parking Eye. Having returned to the site yesterday, the signage also remains woefully inadequate.
Thanks, UTV890 -
Hopefully someone will have useful photos or their P/Eye evidence pack to show you!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks coupon-mad.
Having read the NEWBIES thread I will return the AoS then start a thread with my draft defence.
Any help from anyone on this matter in terms of evidence, successfully worded defence, case numbers etc will be very gratefully received.
Thanks again.0 -
Hi, I am doing a similar appeal for my daughter for 4 PCNs from Parking eye on similar dates (13/3, 15/3, 18/3 and 20/3) and have sent you a DM requesting the POPLA appeal number so that I can quote this. Much appreciated0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards