POPLA Decision - Appeal regarding broken payment machine

Shincliff

Parkingeye withdrew from the appeal after I filed this:

1. Overview – Grounds for Appeal

This appeal challenges a £100 Parking Charge issued by Parkingeye after the driver was unable to pay a £1 fee due to a non-functioning payment machine, and in any event, overstayed for less than 15 minutes. 

The contract required payment at the machine, which was inoperable. No alternative method was required or proven to be usable. Signage was unclear and confusing, the driver’s brief overstay was reasonable, and the operator withheld key evidence. Cancellation is warranted on both legal and equitable grounds.

1.1. The Contract Required Use of the Payment Machine

The written terms of the Parking Contract displayed on signage adjacent to the payment machine at the Hoults Yard car park state:

“…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.” (Emphasis added)

In addition, a prominent instruction under the heading “How to Pay” further states:

“Pay for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required.” (Emphasis added)

These provisions make clear that payment was to be made at the machine or terminal. The sign does not state that a phone app must—or may—be used as an alternative.

---

1.2. The Contract Did Not Require Use of Alternative Methods

While the sign includes the logo and website of “Evology” (presumably a phone payment app), there is no written explanation, nor any instruction to use it. This contrasts sharply with the repeated and explicit instructions to pay at the machine.

The vague reference to “Evology” is therefore ambiguous, confusing, and misleading—particularly as it appears beneath instructions explicitly directing drivers to use the payment machine. The operator should not be permitted to claim that app-based payment formed part of the contract for the following reasons:

§  Contractual obligations must be clearly communicated and understood at the time of agreement;

§  Under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour;

§  Parkingeye never stated that app payment was a required or contractually equivalent method of compliance.

In short, if the operator intended payment by a phone app to form part of the contract, it was their responsibility to say so clearly. They did not. Payment at the machine was the only enforceable method.

2. Payment Machine Failure Made Compliance Impossible

The driver correctly attempted to pay using the on-site machine. However, at the relevant time, the machine displayed:

NOT IN USE
TUE XX XXXX XX:XX
PARKING EYE LTD.

This is undisputed and supported by photographic evidence. The operator made compliance impossible, thereby frustrating performance of the contract and discharging the driver from any contractual liability. No breach can arise where the operator’s own system prevents performance. In such circumstances, no Parking Charge is enforceable.

3. Alternative Payment Methods Not Proven

In their reply to my appeal, Parkingeye asserts vaguely that payment methods were available but (a) they were not identified, (b) they were not contractually required, and (c) they were not shown to be operable at the time. 

§  Parkingeye’s vague response is not transparent and is another instance of withholding information needed for my appeal. 

§  Parkingeye does not establish any contractual obligation to use another method.

§  Parkingeye does not establish the alternate methods were available and usable. This is especially important because loss of mobile signal is a plausible explanation for the payment machine’s failure. If the alternatives also needed a mobile signal (such as a phone app), it is reasonable to conclude that they would not have worked either. 

POPLA has previously held that operators must prove that any alternative method was clearly signposted and realistically usable. Parkingeye has not met that burden.

4. Procedural Unfairness and Adverse Inference – Key Evidence Withheld

In my formal appeal of XX XXXX 2025, I requested the following documents:

§  ANPR evidence;

§  The landowner contract authorising enforcement;

§  Maintenance and operational records for the payment machine;

§  A site map showing the location and content of signage.

Parkingeye failed to provide any of these. This refusal obstructs a fair and balanced appeal process. A driver cannot fairly defend against a charge when the operator refuses to disclose the evidence required to evaluate its position. The absence of this evidence should give rise to an adverse inference regarding its contents.

These materials are critical to assessing whether:

§  Parkingeye lacks legal standing to operate on the site and issue charges (landowner contract);

§  The payment machine has a history of failure or neglect, raising concerns of systemic non-maintenance (maintenance records);

§  Signage was improperly placed and failed to convey the terms of the alleged contract (signage map).

Without this evidence, it is not possible to determine whether there are additional reasons why the charge is unenforceable or whether the driver had a fair opportunity to comply. Parkingeye is in sole possession of these documents and should not benefit from its refusal to disclose them.

It would be procedurally unfair to allow the operator to rely on these materials now, having chosen to withhold them in response to a timely and reasonable request.

5. No Enforceable Contract Was Formed

No valid contract was created in this case because:

§  The only prescribed payment method was unavailable;

§  No viable or clearly instructed alternative was offered;

§  Signage was insufficient, ambiguous, or inaccessible.

These failings undermine the essential elements of contract formation: a clear offer, informed acceptance, and the ability to perform. Moreover, Parkingeye withheld key documents—such as the landowner contract and signage map—that could have further demonstrated the absence of any binding agreement.

Even if POFA conditions for keeper liability were met, both the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the BPA Code of Practice require clarity, transparency, and fairness—all of which were lacking in this instance.

Conclusion

This is not a case of a motorist deliberately ignoring parking terms. It is a case of a driver who attempted to comply, but was prevented from doing so by:

§  A broken and unavailable payment machine;

§  The absence of any clearly required or usable alternative payment method.

In addition, the operator refused to provide key evidence that would have allowed for a fair evaluation of its authority, procedures, and contract terms. The alleged 14-minute overstay followed an attempt to pay and falls within what should be considered a reasonable grace period.

These failures undermine the enforceability of the charge. I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parkingeye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Exhibits

1.     Sign adjacent to the payment machine where payment was attempted.

2.     Photo of inoperable payment machine when payment was attempted. 

3.     Correspondence (combined Pdf) 

a.     Parking Charge Notice dated XX XXXX 2025

b.     Registered Keeper Appeal dated XX XXXX 2025

c.     Parkingeye Denial dated XX XXXX 2025