Harrow Hall - Langley - PCN Parking Eye

Wiz55

Dear all,

First of all thank you in advance for all your help.
I am in the exact situation of the gentlemen in this post. I (registered keeper) have received a PCN from Parking Eye for driving into 'Harrow Hall carpark':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6549898/pcn-parking-eye/p1

The only difference is that I have unfortunately missed the opportunity to appeal and Parking Eye have now sent a letter before county court claim.
I have already drafted my defence in case they start court proceedings, on the grounds of improper signage, no clear demarcation between the two car parks, and the fact that the images taken by Parking Eye do not actually show where the car ended up parked. 
Does this sound like a solid ground of appeal/defence?

Any help you guys could give me would be much appreciated! I will of course update as the case progresses in case anyone else experiences the same incident at this car park.

Coupon-mad

Respond to the LBCCC and set out your dispute.

Can you get pics of the signs there?  Does the t&cs sign on-site include adding £25?

Wiz55

Hi Coupon-mad thanks for your response.
I have responded to the LBCCC.
The other post that I have mentioned contain the sings, however I will come back to the area at some point soon to gather more evidence. The T&C does not mention adding £25, it just says: recovery charges in respect of further action may apply.

I have also contacted what I believe is the landowner and awaiting a reply.

Coupon-mad

OK so no £25 on the signs means that add-on is not recoverable anyway.  Loads of MSE ParkingEye defences this year cover that.

Ruba

I CONTESTED and WON against Parking Eye for a parking ticket in this car park. This was via POPLA as the placement of signage did not meet the reasonable motorist test. You can also contest in court as long as you have evidence that you acted in good faith, as the burden of proof belongs with the parking operator. Under the BPA Code of Practice, operators must provide contemporaneous evidence that adequate signage was present and visible at the time of alleged contravention.

I sent photographs of the car park, saying where I parked and said I bought a pay+display ticket. Around me there is no signage to indicate the area for permits-only. I indicated others had this problem (this forum) and quoted the reasonable motorist test. Parking Eye submitted some old photographs of their signs (no proof they were currently present) and I responded:

"I am surprised by this 'evidence.' 1) The operator has provided photographs from 2018 (7 years ago). My photographs have been provided from 2025. There is 1 Parking-eye photograph from 2024 but this is a close-up and it is unclear where this sign is in the car park. 2) I provided images of where my car was parked (the bay) and the surrounding area which shows no signage. This is clear. The operator has not provided evidence of where my car was parked relative to the signage.

In conclusion, the operator has not provided sufficient evidence to show that I knowingly parked incorrectly. The operator should address the photographs I have provided and put up more signs so customers can see clearly that this section is private land and not the paid car park (what I thought it was)."

DeafRo2012

Hi All

I recently parked in Harrow Hall car park for around 20 minutes. I do not live in the area, so I was unaware that the car park has dual ownership (I certainly do now!) I bought a ticket via the council parking meter which, I paid cash for but kept the ticket, it was the nearest meter, I received a parking ticket from parking eye which I appealed as in my mind, I had bought a ticket and had the evidence of this, however they have since rejected my appeal and explained that I had an invalid ticket, after some research I now realise I must have parked in the school side.

They have photo evidence of my car coming in and out of the car park but not where I parked, they have offered me the reduced fee of £20 or an appeal to POPLA, I intend to appeal to POPLA under the grounds that the signage was not clear and I had all good intentions and bought what I thought was the correct ticket, I am just worried that this will be treated as an admission that I did not have the proper ticket and may need to pay the £60 instead?

I am also not nearby and have no recollection of the signs or photo evidence to support a claim of poor signage. I would appreciate any evidence you guys have of this, if possible?

What do you reckon? pay the reduced £20 or go to appeal? on principle, it just feels like daylight robbery that I would like to fight