Parkingeye - Parking charge notice

Angelica7

I received a parking charge notice due to returning to a car park which has a no return within one hour. I sent them the following letter on receiving the parking charge notice; 

Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued to my vehicle, registration number XXXX XXX, on 2nd November 2024 at Car Park Name. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I would like to provide clarification regarding the alleged contravention.

On the date in question, the vehicle entered the car park briefly but did not park or make use of the facilities during the first entry. The driver realised upon arrival that they did not have their wallet and promptly exited the car park to retrieve it. Upon their return, the vehicle was parked appropriately, and the necessary fee was paid.

Given the circumstances, I believe this Parking Charge Notice has been issued unfairly due to the following reasons:

1. "No Return" Time Clause Does Not Apply to Non-Parking Events:
   The initial entry was not a parking event but an incidental and brief entry to the premises. This should not constitute a breach of the "no return within one hour" rule, as no parking or utilization of the facilities occurred during the first entry.

2. Lack of Clear Distinction Between Parking and Non-Parking Activities:
   The signage at the car park does not make clear that brief entry without parking would trigger the terms of the "no return" rule. This ambiguity could mislead users, which would be non-compliant with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 and the British Parking Association's Code of Practice requiring clear and understandable signage.

3. Mitigating Circumstances:
   The driver's return to the car park within the stated time frame was not an attempt to misuse the facilities but was due to a genuine oversight. This should be considered as a mitigating factor in the spirit of fairness.

I kindly request that this Parking Charge Notice be reviewed and cancelled based on the above points. If you do not agree to cancel this charge, please provide a copy of all evidence you are relying upon, including:

• Full and unredacted copies of all ANPR data showing both entries and exits.
• Photographic evidence of the vehicle parked during the first entry.
• A copy of the car park’s terms and conditions in force on the date in question.

If you reject this appeal, please also provide the necessary details for me to escalate the matter to the independent adjudicator, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Today; I have received the following email from them; 

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 02

November 2024 at 14:46, at XXXXXXX car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we

await further information.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the

breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the

evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well

be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by

visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address

detailed below.

Yours faithfully,

I'm confused that they are asking me to provide evidence but not sure what of?? Please can someone advise?

Gr1pr

They are phishing for the drivers details 

Do nothing and wait for the cancellation or a rejection containing the Popla code 

Angelica7

Gr1pr said:

They are phishing for the drivers details 

Do nothing and wait for the cancellation or a rejection containing the Popla code 

Thank you, I shall sit tight and wait.

Coupon-mad

But search the forum for some of those words in the letter.  You'd have seen the same reply posted a hundred times and wouldn't have needed a thread. Always search first. The forum is a huge resource and no letter is new.

Angelica7

UPDATE
Decision Successful   

Assessor Name 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist returned within the no-return period.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • The motorist entered the car park but promptly exited without parking. • The driver realised upon arrival that they did not have their wallet, so left to retrieve it. • Given that a parking event did not occur on the first entry, the vehicle’s re-entry should not be a breach of the no-return policy. • The vehicles exit was delayed on the first visit due to heavy traffic at the car park’s exit. • The extended duration of the initial visit does not accurately reflect the vehicle’s intended or actual use of the facilities. • The operator has failed to consider their mitigating circumstances. • The operator has not provided that the vehicle was parked during the initial entry. • Genuine customers of the retail park should not be penalised for honest mistakes or circumstances outside of their control. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal and provided comments relating to them. The appellant has also raised an additional ground of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: In this instance, the parking operator is pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I can see that the operator has not referenced that it is attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, the operator should continue to hold the driver liable. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the keeper is in fact the driver of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the keeper was the driver and therefore liable for the charge. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and comments, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Coupon-mad

Well done! 

Which PPC was it?

You didn't tell us it was a non-POFA PCN!

Please post that in POPLA DECISIONS and state which PPC you beat, in that thread.