Carflow PCN (Appeal rejected)

ddq996

Hi all,

I’m looking for advice after receiving a rejected appeal from Carflow for a PCN issued at The Oaks car park. At the time, I made a payment of £4.20, genuinely believing this was the correct amount to cover my stay after the 90-minute free period. The signage at the location advertised £2.10 per hour and I thought I was doing the right thing by paying.

Carflow later issued a PCN stating I underpaid, claiming that once you go over the free period, you're required to pay for your entire stay — not just the time beyond 90 minutes. This wasn't at all clear from the signage, in my opinion. They’ve included a PDF showing the locations of all the signs in the car park and claim that there are stickers on the terminals explaining this condition. Personally, I found it confusing and not immediately obvious.

In my appeal, I explained that the payment was made in good faith and based on a reasonable interpretation of the signage. I also said that issuing a full PCN despite this effort to pay seemed harsh and disproportionate. Carflow rejected the appeal, referencing the Beavis case and saying the charge is fair and enforceable. They’ve extended the deadline to pay by 28 days, but the discounted rate is no longer available. I’ve now been given a POPLA code and am unsure how to proceed.

I’ve not named the driver at any stage. I also understand that if their Notice to Keeper doesn’t fully comply with PoFA 2012, they can't hold the keeper liable — but I haven’t gone through the NTK line by line yet.

Would appreciate any help or pointers before I go further with POPLA. Happy to share redacted copies of the NtK, their rejection, or the signage map PDF if that helps.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

How long did you stay, in total?

Car1980

It doesn't make any sense. It says £2.10 per hour, *after* 90mins of free time.  

So 90mins - 2hr 30 = £2.10
2hr 30 - 3hr 30 = £4.20

You can't "overstay" a free period and "pay for the whole stay" if they mean you inexplicably lose your free 90mins.

The third bullet point scuppers the entire system. No idea why it's even there.

They'll always refuse an appeal. I don't remember the Beavis case allowing inexplicable tariffs.

Coupon-mad

Google the law on ambiguous terms in the Consumer Rights Act.

Do a non-template POPLA appeal citing the law. Let's see how POPLA cope.

ddq996

Coupon-mad said:

How long did you stay, in total?

I've attached a scanned copy of the PCN below. The total duration listed is 03:29:06.

I agree with your point, @Car1980, although I wasn’t the driver on this occasion, I can understand why there might have been some confusion.

I’ll go ahead and Google what you suggested, @Coupon-mad, and I’ll post a draft POPLA appeal response here shortly.

ddq996

@Coupon-mad here's my draft below, let me know if there's anything which should be amended. Thanks for your help!

---

To whom it may concern,

1. The signage terms are contradictory and ambiguous, breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The signage at The Oaks, Acton states:

• 90 minutes free parking is available.

• If a motorist overstays, they must pay for their entire stay at £2.10 per hour.

• Yet elsewhere on the same signage, fixed tariffs are listed, e.g., 90 minutes – 2 hours = £4.20, 2–3 hours = £6.30, and so on.

These two systems contradict each other. It is impossible for a motorist to understand which tariff applies. Is it a per-hour charge of £2.10 or an immediate jump to a fixed bracket?

The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 69 states:

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

Thus, the hourly rate of £2.10 must apply in this case.

2. The parking session calculations show the correct payment was made according to the consumer-favourable interpretation.

According to the PCN:

• Arrival Time: 12 March 2025, 16:47:35

• Departure Time: 12 March 2025, 20:16:41

• Total Stay: 3 hours, 29 minutes

Calculation based on signage:

• First 90 minutes (1 hour 30 minutes) = FREE. Free period ends around 18:17:35.

• Chargeable time = 18:17:35 to 20:16:41, approximately 1 hour 59 minutes.

Thus, based on the £2.10 per hour rate:

• 2 hours x £2.10 = £4.20.

A payment of £4.20 was made at the payment terminal before leaving. This payment aligns perfectly with the rate the signage indicated when interpreted in the consumer’s favour.

3. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is unjustified.

The PCN alleges an underpayment, asserting that £8.40 was owed, treating the entire stay as falling into the 3–4 hour fixed tariff bracket. This is incorrect. The first 90 minutes were free, and the signage instructed that the stay beyond the free period was to be charged at £2.10 per hour.

Therefore, there was no shortfall in payment and no breach of contract.

4. Failure to meet the clarity requirements set out in the Beavis case.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld charges where signage was clear and prominent. Here, the signage is contradictory and misleading, and thus fails the Beavis clarity test.

A motorist cannot be held to an unclear, ambiguous, and contradictory parking charge.

5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority.

In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Section 7, Carflow Ltd must provide evidence that they have a current, valid contract with the landowner authorising them to issue charges at this site.

It is requested that Carflow Ltd produce the contract with the landowner. In the absence of such evidence, the charge cannot be upheld.

For all of these reasons, it is respectfully requested that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Coupon-mad

Yep bung it in and let's see.

Nowt to lose because Carflow (if you are reading this) you aren't going to be paid for this one.

ddq996

Just got an update from POPLA and, as expected, they’ve rejected my appeal. I guess the next step is to wait and see if Carflow decide to escalate it to court and then plan my next move from there?

Le_Kirk

Correct, POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.