PCN entered the car park twice to turn car around but did not park there

nutmegandwalnut

Hi all,

Thank you for your prompt responses and help.

Fruitcake said:

How did you get on with your complaints to the landowner/hotel manager/CEO and your MP?

PE have not not responded to the questions raised in your complaint, so complain now to the BPA..
In all complaints, (BPA, landowner, DVLA etcetera) point out that it is irrelevant who was driving. The vehicle entered and left the site on two occasions without parking, yet PE has unlawfully obtained and processed the keeper's data for a non parking event. This is a breach of the DPA 2015, the GDPR, and the DVLA's KADOE agreement. 

I have contacted my MP and I am awaiting a response from them.

I have also drafted the following email for the hotel manager and CEO. I am currently working my way through this to find the land owner https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6337652/how-to-find-details-of-landowner.

Please let me know if this is suitable.

Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Cancellation of Parking Charge Notice XX and XX

[Dear CEO/ Landowner/ Hotel Manager],

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the conduct of your parking operator, Parking Eye, in relation to two Parking Charge Notices (PCN) XX issued on XX/10/2024 and XX issued on XX/11/2024 related to the location Holiday Inn XX, XX, XX. Their actions have caused unnecessary stress and are without any legitimate basis.

On the dates in question, the vehicle entered and left the site on two separate occasions without parking. Despite this, Parking Eye has alleged a parking contravention occurred. This claim is entirely unfounded and indicates a clear failure to accurately monitor and record vehicle movements.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that Parking Eye has unlawfully obtained and processed the registered keeper's data for what was not a parking event. This constitutes a serious breach of:

The Data Protection Act 2018

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The DVLA's Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) agreement

Parking Eye's misuse of personal data in this context is unacceptable and demonstrates a lack of compliance with legal and regulatory obligations. As the [CEO/hotel manager/ land owner], you are ultimately responsible for the actions of your agents. I request that you immediately instruct Parking Eye to cancel this PCN.

I trust you will address this matter with the seriousness it warrants and take the necessary steps to ensure that such an incident does not recur.

Please confirm, in writing, that the PCN has been cancelled. Should I fail to receive a satisfactory resolution, I will have no choice but to escalate my concerns to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the DVLA and the British Parking Association (BPA).

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

Thank you in advance.

nutmegandwalnut

Hi all,

I've received the following replies from the hotel. I am unsure how to proceed. Apologies in advance for the long post but I feel that it would be wise to provide all the details.

I first emailed the hotel and received the following:
Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Cancellation of Parking Charge Notice XX and XX

"""
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the conduct of your parking operator, Parking Eye, in relation to two Parking Charge Notices (PCN) XX issued on XXand XX issued on XX related to the location Holiday Inn Express XX. Their actions have caused unnecessary stress and are without any legitimate basis. 

On the dates in question, the vehicle entered and left the site on two separate occasions without parking. Despite this, Parking Eye has alleged a parking contravention occurred. This claim is entirely unfounded and indicates a clear failure to accurately monitor and record vehicle movements.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that Parking Eye has unlawfully obtained and processed the registered keeper's data for what was not a parking event. This constitutes a serious breach of:

The Data Protection Act 2018

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The DVLA's Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) agreement

ParkingEye's misuse of personal data in this context is unacceptable and demonstrates a failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations. Given that your hotel contracts and pays for ParkingEye's services, it is important that you ensure their actions are lawful and compliant with all relevant regulations. I kindly request that you instruct ParkingEye to cancel this PCN at the earliest opportunity.

I trust you will address this matter with the seriousness it warrants. I would be grateful if you could kindly confirm in writing once the PCN has been cancelled. Should I not receive a satisfactory resolution, I may be left with no option but to escalate my concerns to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the DVLA, and the British Parking Association (BPA).

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving your prompt response and appreciate your team’s efforts in addressing this concern.
"""

I received the following a couple of replies first from the deputy manager and then the general manager provided these emails.

"""
Thank you for your email. As my colleague XX previously mentioned, Parking Eye has full authority over the parking lot at the back of the hotel. This parking area is entirely managed by Parking Eye, and they have the legal right to issue fines. However, there is an agreement in place between the hotel and Parking Eye whereby all hotel guests receive free parking for the duration of their stay. To take advantage of this, guests must present their bill from the stay, and the parking fine will be voided.

I recommend disputing this directly with Parking Eye and providing evidence of your non-stay. Please note that Parking Eye allows a grace period of 15 minutes for those who come to deliver or pick up customers. If you exceeded that time, it could explain the fine. Parking Eye has full access to CCTV footage on the premises and will be able to review your claims during the dispute process.

The hotel is not affiliated with Parking Eye and bears no responsibility for the actions or fines issued by their firm. As mentioned in your initial email, you indicated plans to report this issue to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the DVLA, and the British Parking Association (BPA). Should you choose to proceed, I suggest informing Parking Eye of these actions, as the hotel has no influence over their operations.

If you were a guest of the hotel, please obtain a copy of your receipt and use it as evidence in your dispute to show you were wrongfully charged. I apologize that I cannot assist further, as the hotel has no control over Parking Eye’s management of the parking lot. Additionally, the hotel’s name should not be associated with this fine, and any misunderstanding of the hotel’s role should be corrected appropriately.

Please let me know if there’s anything further I can assist with regarding the hotel’s point of sale.

"""

My response:

"""

Thank you for your response.

While I appreciate the information regarding Parking Eye’s role and the hotel's agreement with them, it is still unclear to me who the actual landowner of the parking lot is. Could you please confirm if the land is owned by Holiday Inn XX or another party? I am seeking to speak directly with the landowner to address this matter.

If you are unable to provide this information, I would appreciate it if you could escalate my complaint to your senior manager for assistance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.

"""

Their final response was the following:

"""

Thank you for your email.

As stated in my previous correspondence, Parking Eye operates independently and has no connection to the hotel, its ownership, or its management. I kindly request once again that you refrain from associating our company with Parking Eye or their actions.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide further details, as the answer remains the same. Pursuing this matter with Holiday Inn is not a productive course of action, as Parking Eye operates entirely independently from us.

Regarding the ownership of the land, ownership details can be obtained through the local Land Registry, as they are public information. Typically, landowners lease plots of land to companies like Parking Eye for extended periods (e.g., 10–20 years) under lease agreements that absolve them of liability for the operations of the leasing firm.

I regret that I cannot assist further. We have responded to your emails as a courtesy, but this matter falls entirely outside the scope of the hotel’s responsibilities. My role at Holiday Inn does not involve handling Parking Eye’s business affairs.

Thank you for your understanding.

"""

I also emailed the ceo and received the following response but this was forwarded to the same general manager.

"""

Greetings from the Executive Office of IHG.  Mr. Elie Maalouf, CEO, IHG, received your email about the Parking Eye charges you received at the Holiday Inn XX, and has asked I review this situation on behalf of IHG as a whole, and to help you get in contact with the appropriate individuals.  

I'm truly sorry to learn of the frustration you experienced after receiving the Parking Eye fine.  I understand that you have advised that you did not park at all for both occasions .  I want to make sure the individuals responsible for the daily operations are notified, as IHG isn't involved in this independently owned hotel's car park policies.  As the management of the hotel is in the best position to make sure this matter gets addressed appropriately, I'm including the General Manager, XX, in this email.  XX oversees their car park policies and car registration.  

Hi XX, please see the below email from XX  Will you or a member of your management team please look into this issue and contact them directly as soon as possible?  
"""
I replied to clarify:
"""

Thank you for your response and for forwarding my concerns to Mr. XX.

I would like to clarify that I am addressing this matter as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. At no point have I identified myself as the driver.

I trust this clarification will be noted, and I look forward to an update once this matter has been resolved.

"""
Unfortunately the general manager replied with the following:
"""

I wanted to address this matter and provide some context. My colleague XX and I have already been in contact with XX, and several emails have been exchanged. On multiple occasions, I have explained that Parking Eye operates independently in the vicinity of the hotel and is not part of our management company.

I have clearly stated in all our communications that I have no authority to cancel any fines issued by Parking Eye. Despite this, XX continues to associate Holiday Inn Express XX with Parking Eye and refuses to accept that this is a matter he must pursue directly with Parking Eye or the other entities he mentioned, such as the DVLA. Instead of addressing the issue with Parking Eye,XX has escalated this matter to IHG, which, like the hotel, has no authority over a third-party company.

It is also important to note that XX was not a guest of the hotel and resides in the vicinity. This is now the sixth email my team and I have written on this matter, and each time I have explained that this issue is unrelated to the hotel or IHG.

XX, I kindly ask you once again to stop associating the hotel's name with this matter and to pursue legal action directly against Parking Eye. I have responded patiently to all your correspondence, but the answer will remain the same regardless of who you contact outside of Parking Eye.

I have attached the Outlook sent emails trail to XX for further transparency

Thank you for your understanding.

"""

I am still awaiting a response from my MP (email sent 6/1/25) and BPA after filing a complaint (10/1/25).

If you could provide some advice on how to proceed I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you in advance as usual.

Car1980

You're not going to get anywhere with the hotel, so I suggest you just email back once more to and say that if Parking Eye make a county court claim you will counterclaim and include IHG as a party as being jointly and severally liable.

In the meantime look out for the Letter Before Claim from DCB Legal, when I suggest you respond and let Sarah Ensall know it'll be a pointless claim because you simply turned around and left, refusing the terms of any contract. They just get given a spreadsheet and know nothing about the claims.

Half_way

land registry search?
have you told/ reminded the hotel that they are jointly liable the actions of their agents?

Thorndorise

Half_way said:

land registry search?
have you told/ reminded the hotel that they are jointly liable the actions of their agents?

I've had a good read, but you still haven't answered Half_way's previous question and appear to have redacted the location, where is this hotel/car park? which one is it?

nutmegandwalnut

Hi all,

Thank you all for the prompt replies.

Thorndorise said:

Half_way said:

land registry search?
have you told/ reminded the hotel that they are jointly liable the actions of their agents?

I've had a good read, but you still haven't answered Half_way's previous question and appear to have redacted the location, where is this hotel/car park? which one is it?

Apologies, the location is Holiday Inn Express Fleet Car Park. 

Car1980 said:

You're not going to get anywhere with the hotel, so I suggest you just email back once more to and say that if Parking Eye make a county court claim you will counterclaim and include IHG as a party as being jointly and severally liable.

In the meantime look out for the Letter Before Claim from DCB Legal, when I suggest you respond and let Sarah Ensall know it'll be a pointless claim because you simply turned around and left, refusing the terms of any contract. They just get given a spreadsheet and know nothing about the claims.

Is the following draft email suitable? Should I include 

"Dear XX,

Thank you for your response. I regret that this matter has not been resolved despite my repeated attempts to address it amicably. I am writing to formally put you on notice that, should Parking Eye initiate legal proceedings regarding these Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), I will be compelled to file a counterclaim and include both Parking Eye and IHG (as the associated hotel operator) as jointly and severally liable parties.

This is because:

1. Parking Eye operates under an agreement with the Holiday Inn Express Fleet.
2. The hotel, as either landowner or leaseholder, has a duty to ensure that Parking Eye's actions are lawful and compliant with data protection regulations.

Furthermore, Parking Eye’s alleged misuse of my personal data raises serious concerns under the GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the DVLA’s KADOE agreement. As the hotel has a contractual relationship with Parking Eye, it may bear liability for any breach of these regulations.

While I prefer to resolve this matter without further escalation, I will take the necessary legal steps to protect my rights should this matter proceed to court. I kindly request that you reconsider your position and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the PCNs at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your prompt reply."

Also, suppose an individual had evidence to invalidate the times on a PCN as it shows that a driver was located at a different location (google timeline) or a letter from their workplace, what would be the recommendation with these documents?

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

I think I would include that:

1. Parking charges are not 'fines' and the Hotel should never describe them as such;

2. further, ParkingEye do not lease any car parks, so it was unhelpful for the General Manager to suggest this. They merely operate as agents having convinced various landowners to authorise them to run a supposedly 'free' regime.  That then gives them an incentive to issue as many PCNs as possible: an MO often identified as akin to a protection racket. This is why the Government described these firms as 'extorting money from motorists' and the entire industry is about to be regulated.

3. ParkingEye use ANPR and they do not use CCTV moving images. If ParkingEye "has full access" (as suggested) to the Hotel's outside facing CCTV then I require access from IHG (as the principal data owner and processor) to the footage from the incident date. Under my SAR rights, you must supply the footage within 30 days of this email (you may redact/blur other cars and individuals but must show all captures of my vehicle that day).

4. Under the law of agency, if IHG contracted with ParkingEye then the Hotel remains jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents, including data protection breaches such as this.

What you should do now:

If IHG doesn't understand my SAR rights (NB: you may be unaware that a VRM is my personal data, as a matter of law)  and/or why you are jointly and severally liable and/or how this was a data breach that IHG cannot just shrug off and distance yourselves from, can I respectfully suggest that you seek legal advice because you are about to be reported to the Information Commissioner and my MP.

This case is already being discussed in the public domain, on the UK's largest consumer forum, MSE.  So yes, IHG is certainly being discussed in the same breath as ParkingEye. This is what happens when good companies with a customer service ethic get into bed with a known to be 'out of control' ANPR industry.

Hotels should think more carefully before letting ANPR 'protection rackets' operate on your land. You can't wash your hands of this data breach caused by flawed ANPR images and a lack of human scrutiny by your agents.  In itself, the failure by your agents to bother to look for the missing 'out' and 'return' images, is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice, which puts them in breach of their landowner agreement with IHG. Does anyone care?

nutmegandwalnut

Hi all,

I received the following response after sending this email:
"

I regret that this matter has not been resolved despite my repeated attempts to address it amicably. I am writing to formally put you on notice that, should ParkingEye initiate legal proceedings regarding these Parking Charge Notices, I will be compelled to file a counterclaim and include both ParkingEye and IHG (as the associated hotel operator) as jointly and severally liable parties. This is because under the law of agency, if IHG contracted with ParkingEye then the Hotel remains jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents, including data protection breaches such as this. 

Furthermore, it is important to clarify the following. 

1. Parking charges are not 'fines' and the Hotel should never describe them as such. 

2. ParkingEye do not lease any car parks, so it is unhelpful to suggest this. They merely operate as agents having convinced various landowners to authorise them to run a supposedly 'free' regime. That then gives them an incentive to issue as many Parking Charge Notices as possible: a modus operandi often identified as akin to a protection racket. This is why the Government described these firms as 'extorting money from motorists' and the entire industry is about to be regulated. 

3. ParkingEye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology and they do not use CCTV moving images. If ParkingEye "has full access" (as suggested) to the Hotel's outside facing CCTV then I require access from IHG (as the principal data owner and processor) to the footage from the incident date. Under my Subject Access Request rights, you must supply the footage within 30 days of this email (you may redact/blur other cars and individuals but must show all captures of my vehicle that day). 

4. Your claim that I have not contacted other relevant parties is inaccurate. However, as ParkingEye operates under a contractual agreement with the hotel, it is widely understood that the most effective and expedient resolution often requires the landowner or leaseholder (in this case, the hotel) to intervene directly. You are in the best position to instruct ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notices in question. 

What you should do now: 

If IHG doesn't understand my Subject Access Request rights (please note you may be unaware that a Vehicle Registration Mark is considered personal data, as a matter of law) and/or why you are jointly and severally liable and/or how this was a data breach that IHG cannot just shrug off and distance yourselves from, can I respectfully suggest that you seek legal advice because you are about to be reported to the Information Commissioner and my MP. 

This case is already being discussed in the public domain, on the UK's largest consumer forum, MSE. So yes, IHG is certainly being discussed in the same breath as ParkingEye. This is the unfortunate result of reputable companies with a strong customer service ethos aligning themselves with an Automatic Number Plate Recognition industry that is widely recognised as being poorly regulated and problematic. Hotels must consider the reputational risks of partnering with parking operators whose methods are increasingly seen as "protection rackets." In this case, flawed Automatic Number Plate Recognition images and a lack of human scrutiny have led to a clear breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and ParkingEye’s landowner agreement with IHG. 

Final Request: 

I urge you to reconsider your position and instruct ParkingEye to cancel the PCNs. This action would be the quickest and most equitable resolution to this matter. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. 
"

Unfortunately received this from the general manager but did cc in the executive liaison (they previous redircted me to the general manager).

"Thank you for your email. I will keep my response brief, as it reiterates what I have already stated.

Holiday Inn Express Fleet has not issued any fines to you. Please contact Parking Eye directly to clarify this matter, as you were not a guest of the hotel , and this has nothing to do with the hotel or IHG

Once again, I must emphasize that you are contacting the wrong party. Your continued emails to us are a waste of you valuable time, as any disputes regarding the charges should be directed to Parking Eye.

I understand you are upset but you are threatening the hotel for something that we have no power over , I have no access to their cameras, I have no access to their fines, I have NO ACCESS to parking eye

Thank you for your understanding."

What would you recommend to respond from here?

Furthermore would you recommend following up to my MP as I sent an email on 6/1/25?

Thank you in advance.

Thorndorise

I love this letter, very much putting on the record of your concerns and ongoing attempts to get this sorted.

I've had a look at the location, and maybe I'm missing something, but which car park is it that you are supposed to have turned around in - as there don't appear to be any car parks nearby other than the public one opposite (assuming google maps is still up to date) - OR, is it the service road around the back of the property? Either way, are you certain that IHG own the land that Parking Eye are managing.

Don't get me wrong, landowners can be a) numpties b) naïve and c) clueless - it does seem that this manager is clear that they don't have anything to do with the land....sorry if I've missed something obvious (totally aware that if they do they are jointly and severally liable).

Coupon-mad

I'd get your MP to please write in support of your complaint (2 letters):

1. ask ParkingEye to check their ANPR images from that day and the positioning of their camera and to confirm that they will now drop this unfair PCN;

2. ask IHG who contracted ParkingEye and why the landowner has not told PEye to cancel the PCN because this was just an innocent (and understandably now very angry) local person turning their car round.

They'll both have to answer the MP.