Please help review Popla Appeal letter for Parkingeye | Britannia car park canary wharf

Spicygem · 17 August at 8:21PM

Hi Coupon-mad Gr1pr, i'm back again if you don't mind PE have now uploaded their evidence pack to Popla and i have until Tuesday to add comments.

I’m not sure if I need to attach the pack here, but here is their main rebuttal below. They also attached the Landowner contract/letter of authority and signage and carpark photos.

“

Rules and Conditions

This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted when parking payments are made.

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

Payment Options: Payment Kiosks & Evology

Number of Payment Kiosks: 2

Authority

We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information

The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack.

This car park has been registered with the British Parking Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.

Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.

We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.

Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with.

Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.

Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.

It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.

There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation.

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park visible.

Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences, and the authority is given.

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.

Whitelist Name	Plate	Description	Start Date/Time	End Date/Time	Input Date/Time	Duration
Britannia International Hotel, Canary Wharf - Paid			07/05/2025 18:58:00	07/05/2025 19:58:00	07/05/2025 18:58:00	1 hr 0 min

Car Park	Britannia International Hotel, Canary Wharf
In Date/Time	07/05/2025 18:45:57
Out Date/Time	07/05/2025 19:56:03
Time Allowed	0 hours 0 minutes
Time In Car Park	1 hours 10 minutes
Time Paid For	1 hours 0 minutes

Spicygem · 17 August at 8:24PM

I’ve decided to focus my comments on my winning argument which is that they haven’t considered the grace period. I would appreciate your thoughts and feedback please, thanks so much:

This appeal should be allowed because ParkingEye’s own evidence confirms that no breach occurred.

1. ParkingEye’s Evidence Confirms Payment Was Made

ParkingEye’s evidence includes a payment record showing that one hour of parking was paid for, beginning at 18:58 and ending at 19:58 on 07/05/2025.

This proves the driver complied with the contract and intended to pay for the stay. There is no dispute about non-payment.

2. Alleged Overstay – Only 6 Seconds

ParkingEye’s ANPR data records a total stay of 70 minutes and 6 seconds. This equates to an alleged “overstay” of just 6 seconds beyond the paid hour.

Such a minor difference cannot reasonably give rise to a £100 charge. It is both legally trivial (de minimis) and entirely covered by the BPA Code’s grace period requirements.

3. BPA Code of Practice – Grace Period Requirements

The BPA Code of Practice is binding on all Accredited Operators. Section 5.2 and Annex B require:

A consideration period upon entry to allow drivers to find a bay, unload passengers, and pay.
A minimum 10-minute grace period after a paid period expires before enforcement action.

In this case:

The driver paid for parking from 18:58 to 19:58.
The vehicle exited at 19:56:03.
The alleged 6-second overstay is well within the 10-minute mandatory grace period.

Therefore, ParkingEye’s own evidence confirms that no breach occurred.

4. Consideration Period on Arrival

The Code also requires a reasonable period upon entry. At this site, the driver had to:

manoeuvre through a tight underground car park and locate a bay (approx. 6 minutes),
unload a newborn and toddler (approx. 3 minutes), and
walk to the hotel entrance to pay in cash (approx. 3 minutes).

This 12-minute process is exactly the type of consideration period recognised in the BPA Code. ParkingEye’s reliance on ANPR entry/exit times, without acknowledging this, is not compliant.

5. Proportionality and Consumer Rights

Even if POPLA were to accept ParkingEye’s claim of a 6-second overstay, enforcing a £100 charge for such a trivial matter is disproportionate and contrary to the fairness requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) is not relevant here. In Beavis, the Court upheld charges for significant overstays in a free car park with commercial justification. A 6-second stay beyond a paid session, where payment was made in full, is clearly not analogous.

6. Photo Evidence Is Outdated and Misleading

ParkingEye has provided images of the hotel entrance and entry to the underground car park that are dated between 2015–2018, some not dated at all. These do not accurately reflect how the underground parking would appear under normal conditions in person at the time of the alleged parking event in May 2025.

Moreover, the images fail to demonstrate the tight corners and difficult layout of the underground car park, which directly affects the time it takes a driver to locate a space and unload passengers. This context is crucial to understanding the consideration period required by the BPA Code. By relying on old, selective photographs, ParkingEye’s evidence does not give a true or fair representation of the site.

7. Conclusion

ParkingEye’s evidence confirms that: