Help reviewing draft POPLA appeal - ParkingEye 8 minutes nighttime charge

AurelionSol

Received a letter dated 30/04/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper for the vehicle, considering parking in a massive rooftop car park for 8 minutes at night. Pedestrian elevator exits were closed (no signs warning they close after 6pm). Using the dodgy vehicle ramp, with luggage, was not a good option, hence the vehicle aborted.

My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Limited – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 09/05/2025 and rejected via an email dated 25/06/2025. They emailed somewhere in between, threatening that I name the driver or the appeal 'may be rejected' - did not name the driver.

Now, I am appealing to POPLA and hoping to get some feedback on my draft. I have already put in 6 hours dealing with this scam, so only major changes please.
https://mega.nz/file/1B8QhKiI#7Xd2xte7C3LCoYD5uiGhHcF887iU5x2F7D0lG-Cg0nY

Main appeal points are the carpark size, time of day (poor lighting) and closed pedestrian exits should make the consideration time 15 mins not the minimum 5 mins BPA guidelines mention - ANNEX B.

Also how they is no evidence of compliance with B.2 - ‘Parking operators must register with the ATA to which they belong the consideration periods they intend to apply to individual sites before issuing a parking charge.’

Thank you all in advance.
Sol 

Coupon-mad

Welcome.

Can you post your planned POPLA appeal into a couple of replies, not as a link? More people will look.

Also a photo of post both sides of the NTK.

AurelionSol

Introduction

To whom it may concern,

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 30/04/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Limited – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 09/05/2025 and rejected via an email dated 25/06/2025. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

I am writing this comprehensive and detailed appeal in response to the unjust and disproportionate parking charge that has been imposed on my vehicle, at the St Benedicts rooftop car park situated at Malthouse Close, Huntingdon, PE293PA on  26/04/2025 between the hours of 22:32 and 22:40. I firmly and unequivocally believe that the parking charge in question is entirely unwarranted and is in direct violation of the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice v1.1, with specific reference to sections 5.1, 5.2, and Annex B, which explicitly outline and emphasize the fundamental importance of how the appropriate consideration period must be granted to drivers.

AurelionSol

1. Consideration Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

 

The BPA’s Code of Practice v1.1 states (5) that:

5.1. Consideration period

Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B. The following factors should be taken into account:

 

a) the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs;

NOTE 1: For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc.

b) the time required for a driver to identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not invited;

c) the time required for a driver to identify and comply with requirements for payment;

d) the time required for a driver to leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions;

e) the impact of the layout of the controlled land on 5.1a) to 5.1d); f) the impact of the number of vehicles accessing the car park on 5.1a) to 5.1d); and g) the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land on 5.1a) to 5.1d).

 

Commentary on Clause 5 by BPA

As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of time needed varies according to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open to the public includes the time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should the driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration period before the contract between the driver and the parking operator is made. It is also a requirement to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period where parking is permitted, and all terms and conditions have been complied with.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

 

Annex B – Minima Consideration and grace periods

The purpose of this Annex is to set the mandatory minima for the consideration and grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2. Factors to be taken into account are detailed in the relevant clauses.

The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question.

B.1 The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.

B.2 Parking operators must register with the ATA to which they belong the consideration periods they intend to apply to individual sites before issuing a parking charge.

 

Figure 0.1 Table of Minima Consideration Period

 

Figure 0.1 Table of Minima Consideration Period

I argue that the duration of the visit in question (which Parkingeye claim was a mere 8 minutes) is not an unreasonable consideration period taking into account 5.1 a, b ,c ,d and e. It is clearly insufficient considering the unique layout, lighting, signage, and various other factors that are present at the site in question.

In addition, there is no evidence Parkingeye Limited has shown any proof of compliance with B.2. ‘Parking operators must register with the ATA to which they belong the consideration periods they intend to apply to individual sites before issuing a parking charge.’

AurelionSol

GPS Map and Size Data

The site path length is 540 metres. With an elevation of 18 metres.

This is a massive carpark (figure 1.2, red) , with minimal accessibility and a single busy entrance / exit via Malthouse Close.

It is 3 times the area of a nearby ground level council carpark (figure 1.2 blue). Therefore, I argue the consideration period should be a minimum of 15 minutes.

Figure 0.1 GPS Path Tracking of Rooftop Carpark

Figure 0.2 St Benedicts Carpark (red) satellite view vs Council Carpark (blue) size.

AurelionSol

Time-consuming factors affecting consideration period

There exists a myriad of diverse and multifaceted factors that collectively and cumulatively contribute to the undeniable necessity for a more rational, equitable, and practical consideration period. These factors encompass a vast array of critical aspects, which include but are not limited to:

Unloading and loading of passengers or luggage:

The process of unloading and loading passengers, particularly those with specific needs such as children, elderly individuals, or persons with disabilities, can be time-consuming. Furthermore, maneuvering heavy, cumbersome, and unwieldy luggage or large items may require additional time, especially when navigating through a complex parking structure.

Maneuvering through the site with specialized equipment:

The presence of wheelchairs, mobility aids, baby seats, or other specialized equipment can significantly impact the time required for drivers to assess the parking area. Ensuring safe passage, navigating obstacles, and securing these items may prolong the consideration period. Poor lighting conditions make this even more dangerous and difficult.

Figure 0.1 Poorly lit stairs and ramps to pedestrian exits

Assessment of safety and suitability:

Drivers must diligently assess, evaluate, and scrutinize the safety and overall suitability of the parking location, particularly in light of poor lighting, pedestrian hazards, and potentially blocked exits. This evaluation process takes time and requires a thorough examination of the surroundings.

Poor lighting & Selection of an appropriate parking bay and parking:

Identifying a suitable parking bay that accommodates the specific requirements of a user can be a time-consuming process. This may involve considering factors such as proximity to entrances and exits, lighting conditions, and potential risks of theft, vandalism, or vehicle collisions.

Some of the parking bays are painting which at night are difficult to identify as normal or disabled parking bays.

The poor lighting conditions result in parking taking several attempts.

Figure 0.2 Painted Parking bays are confusing and misleading if they are disabled parking bays

The vast size of the car park means users have multiple zones to chose from and ramps to navigate their vehicle around. While judging distance from potential exits, payment machines and potentially heavy traffic areas

Figure 0.3 Parking Zone 1 near ramp

Figure 0.4 Parking Zone 2 – Pedestrian exit door 1 and parking machine 1 at the end

Figure 0.5 Parking Zone 3

Figure 0.6 Ramp to Zone 4 and 5 , no lighting

Figure 0.7 Zone 4 - No lighting

Figure 0.8 Zone 5 - poor light, leads to pedestrian exit door 2 and payment machine 2

 

Management of time of day and environmental factors:

The time of day and prevailing weather conditions can significantly affect a users ability to navigate and assess the parking area. For example, darkness, heavy rain, or fog may impede visibility and extend the consideration period required for a safe and informed decision.

Users also have to consider the direction a vehicle is parked to avoid direct sunlight the next day.

Consultation with passengers:

In some instances, users may need to consult with passengers regarding parking preferences or specific needs. This communication and decision-making process can contribute to a longer consideration period.

Poor Signage

The car park's signage poses significant challenges for users attempting to navigate and comply with parking regulations. The information boards, which are essential for communicating important details and instructions, suffer from inadequate lighting, making them difficult to read, particularly during hours of darkness or in poor weather conditions. Additionally, these signs are often situated on the periphery of the car park, further impeding visibility and access for drivers.

Compounding the issue, the information boards are overloaded with dense text, leading to confusion and difficulty in comprehending the terms and conditions of parking. This excessive and poorly organized information necessitates drivers to dedicate additional time to thoroughly review and understand the details, prolonging the consideration period.

Moreover, some of the signage is partially occluded by crash barriers, obstructing critical information and contributing to the overall ineffectiveness of the car park's guidance system. As a result, drivers are left struggling to decipher the unclear and convoluted parking regulations, often resorting to double-checking details in an effort to avoid penalties. This time-consuming and frustrating process highlights the urgent need for improvements in the car park's signage design, placement, and illumination.

Figure 0.9 Poorly lit and confusing 'No Parking' sign

 

Figure 0.10 In red - Occluded, poorly lit, far away located parking information

Figure 0.11 Close up of occluded signage

Poor road conditions, potholes, uneven surfaces and ramps

The car park's road conditions present a significant obstacle for users attempting to navigate the site safely and efficiently. The labyrinthine layout exacerbates the challenges posed by the numerous potholes, uneven surfaces, and poorly maintained roadways that pervade the parking area. These hazardous conditions necessitate drivers to exercise extreme caution while driving, which can considerably extend the time required to traverse the site and locate a suitable parking space.

The prevalence of potholes and uneven surfaces not only increases the risk of vehicle damage but also poses a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians alike. This is particularly concerning given the car park's poor lighting conditions, which further impede visibility and increase the likelihood of accidents.

Moreover, the lack of clear directional signage throughout the car park's labyrinthine layout forces drivers to rely on their own judgment and intuition to navigate the site. This can lead to confusion, frustration, and a prolonged consideration period as drivers attempt to orient themselves and identify appropriate routes to available parking spaces or exits.

In light of these issues, it is evident that the car park's substandard road conditions and disorienting layout significantly contribute to the time-consuming nature of the parking process. Consequently, it is essential that the parking operator address these concerns and implement the necessary improvements to ensure a safer, more efficient, and user-friendly parking experience.

Figure 0.12 Pot holes and uneven road surface

Payment issues:

The car park's payment system is a source of considerable frustration and time consumption for drivers, particularly due to its lack of support for American Express (Amex) cards at the on-site payment machines. This issue is compounded by the fact that many users may only discover the unsupported payment method after attempting to process their transaction, resulting in wasted time and inconvenience.

To circumvent this problem, drivers are compelled to utilize the alternative PayByPhone app. However, the process of downloading, installing, and configuring the application can be time-consuming, particularly for those with limited data connectivity or older mobile devices. Additionally, users are required to sign up and provide personal information, further prolonging the payment process and adding to the overall consideration period.

Furthermore, the car park's poor network coverage often leads to delays in processing mobile payments via the PayByPhone app. This can result in users having to spend additional time attempting to complete their transactions or, in some cases, resorting to seeking alternative payment methods, thereby extending the duration of the consideration period.

In view of these issues, it is clear that the car park's payment system is in need of significant improvements to ensure a more seamless and efficient experience for drivers. Such improvements could include accepting a broader range of payment methods at on-site machines, streamlining the sign-up process for the PayByPhone app, and addressing the inadequate network coverage within the car park.

Exiting the car park:

In some instances, drivers may find it necessary to leave the car park due to factors such as a lack of available spaces, safety concerns, or a change in plans. Reloading luggage, navigating the parking area and exiting the premises can further add to the time required during the consideration period.

AurelionSol

Closed, Inadequate Pedestrian Exit Access and Missing Signage

A critical issue at the car park is the unavailability after 6 PM, of the two only pedestrian exits door equipped with elevators. This restriction is particularly problematic for individuals with mobility challenges, parents with young children, or those carrying heavy items. To make matters worse, there is a lack of clear signage informing users of this limitation, causing confusion and inconvenience for those attempting to enter/ exit the car park during the evening hours.

In the case at hand, the vehicle was compelled to navigate the car park with a baby seat in the dark, contending with an uneven surface and an alarming absence of protective railing to safeguard against oncoming traffic. This hazardous and anxiety-inducing experience ultimately served as the determining factor in the decision to exit the car park.

Compounding the issue, the car park features numerous blocked / locked doors labelled as "fire exits" which, in reality, do not provide a safe or accessible means of egress for users. These misleading signs not only contribute to confusion and disorientation but also pose a potential safety hazard in the event of an emergency.

Given the unacceptable lack of accessible pedestrian exits and the prevalence of misleading signage throughout the car park, it is evident that these deficiencies must be addressed as a matter of urgency. The parking operator should take immediate steps to improve exit accessibility, particularly during evening hours, and ensure that all signage accurately reflects the safety and accessibility provisions available to users. Only through these measures can the car park offer a safe, accessible, and user-friendly experience for all drivers and pedestrians.

Figure 0.1 Closed pedestrian exit door

Figure 0.2 Numerous misleading alternative exit doors

AurelionSol

Conclusion

In light of the multitude of factors and issues outlined in this appeal, it is abundantly clear that the 5-minute consideration period imposed by ParkingEye is woefully inadequate and wholly unacceptable. The myriad of time-consuming factors, including poor road conditions, inadequate signage, limited payment options, and insufficient pedestrian access, collectively necessitate a far more reasonable and equitable consideration period for drivers utilizing the car park.

The compelling evidence provided, such as GPS data, photographic documentation, irrefutably demonstrates that a 5-minute consideration period is an absurdity. This timeframe utterly fails to account for the various challenges and obstacles drivers face when attempting to navigate and assess the parking area.

A more realistic consideration period would be a minimum of 15 minutes, allowing users the necessary time to contend with the aforementioned issues and ensure their safety, as well as the safety of any passengers or pedestrians in the vicinity. Ideally, a 20-minute consideration period would provide a comfortable and reasonable allowance for the vast majority of drivers, accommodating the diverse needs and circumstances of all users.

It is imperative that ParkingEye recognizes its obligations under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice and takes immediate steps to rectify the numerous deficiencies highlighted in this appeal. By implementing a more reasonable consideration period and addressing the glaring issues with the car park's infrastructure, ParkingEye can demonstrate its commitment to fairness, accessibility, and safety for all drivers.

In conclusion, the sheer weight of evidence and the clear violation of BPA guidelines should leave no doubt that this appeal must be upheld, and the parking charge overturned. To maintain the integrity of the parking industry and uphold the rights of motorists, it is essential that fairness and equity prevail in this matter.

In anticipation of a fair and just resolution, I eagerly await a response from the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) regarding this matter. I trust that POPLA will give due consideration to the overwhelming evidence presented and take the necessary steps to ensure that ParkingEye adheres to the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. As a motorists' advocate, POPLA plays a vital role in maintaining balance and fairness within the parking industry.

I  look forward to a favourable decision from POPLA, reaffirming its commitment to protecting motorists' rights and promoting transparency, accessibility, and safety within the realm of private parking.

Kind Regards,

The Registered Keeper

Car1980

Your signage point will be dismissed. 

Is there a sign? Yes.
Has it been audited buy the BPA and therefore must be absolutely perfect? Yes.

So you need to think of a way of arguing against this in your signage paragraph.

Coupon-mad

I suggest you get Chat GPT to re-write the entire thing in normal English without the soup of long words.

It reads like a 'bot' wrote it and I can't even begin to bother to read the sentences and unnecessary words like 'myriad' and 'multitude'. I understand them but don't want to read them! Nor will the Assessor.

Short words flow better.

Remove this entire Intro:

"Introduction

To whom it may concern,

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 30/04/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Limited – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 09/05/2025 and rejected via an email dated 25/06/2025. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:"

Replace it with the normal story (not written by AI) of why the car entered the land for 8 minutes and what the driver was doing.

AurelionSol

Thank you all for the feedback. I'll rewrite it tonight and use simpler language.

@Coupon-mad For the intro, I followed this POPLA appeal draft on grace periods intro you recommended.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/post/quote/5753601/Comment_73797736