Sanity check of PCN/POPLA decision

BurstingOlive

I would appreciate a sanity-check of the reasons given for a PCN from ParkingEye and POPLA's rejection of an appeal - it feels so wrong that I am worried I am missing something obvious.

The displayed signs show charges of :-

Per hour (8am-6pm) £2.00

Overnight (6pm-8am) £1.40

The agreed arrival and departure times are 7:31pm and 11:40am the next day giving a total time of 16 hours 9 minutes.

I think the total due is £9.40 - £1.40 for 7:31 to 8am, and 4 x £2 for 8am-11:40.

That total was paid in 2 payments - a first of £5.40 (at 9:50pm) and a second of £4 (10am the next day).

The appeal has been refused because "This confirms that the appellant made payment to cover a parking period of 14 hours 9 minutes. The operator further provided a copy of the PCN which confirms the appellant utilised the site for 16 hours 9 minutes, this leaves a 2 hour period to which no payment was made to cover."

The 14 hours 9 minutes arises because the first payment was made 2 hours after arriving (and the payment app doesn't let you state arrival time, only length of stay).  However this does not affect the amount due - it is a flat rate after 6pm. 

In my view the correct amount has been paid, the only difference is the time stated on the payment. The same amount would have been paid even if the payment was made on arrival. I can't find anything that limits how quickly you have to pay.

Can anyone confirm/deny my view? 

Assuming I'm correct I shall await a letter before claim and then follow the guidance here.

Castle

What Parking Eye are claiming is that:-
1) When the Driver paid the £5.40 at 9.50pm they overpaid by £4.00, as only £1.40 was actually due, and they are keeping the £4.00 as an overpayment.
2) Therefore, next morning, the driver would still have to pay the £8.00 for the 4 hours of parking, (making sure they didn't pay before 8.00am, because, that would also be treated as an overpayment of the overnight rate).

Did you get tickets from the machine(s)?

BurstingOlive

Interesting, that makes the maths add up I guess. No mention of the idea of an overpayment from them.  No tickets, but we do have the receipts.  The first one shows a stop-parking time of 10am the next morning which rather creates the impression we have validly paid.

Castle

You should be complaining to POPLA about their decision and asking them, which 2 hours weren't paid for.

Car1980

Using two units is ambiguous - pounds per hour and pounds per period.

Not to mention no mention of only accepting payments for the current period, not future periods of time - despite listing future periods of time in the list of tariffs.

Your interpretation is how I would read it and pay.

Their PCN is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

69. Contract terms that may have different meanings

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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_20150015_en.pdf

This is the problem with Popla. By default the operator is in the right unless you can prove otherwise (the exact opposite of county court). You will only win if you provide evidence, such as quoting legislation or the code of practice. They won't do it for you.

BurstingOlive

Car1980 said:

Using two units is ambiguous - pounds per hour and pounds per period.

Your interpretation is how I would read it and pay.

Their PCN is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

This is the problem with Popla. By default the operator is in the right unless you can prove otherwise (the exact opposite of county court). You will only win if you provide evidence, such as quoting legislation or the code of practice. They won't do it for you.

Thanks Car1980, that's helpful. I agree on your last point, I have to admit to being slightly lapse in the POPLA appeal as I had assumed it was obvious. 

I am not nervous of going to Court (I'm a lawyer, but in a different field), so will certainly be continuing to argue teh point.

I appreciate the time taken to respond.

BurstingOlive

Castle said:

You should be complaining to POPLA about their decision and asking them, which 2 hours weren't paid for.

I would if I could find a way, but all of my research suggests there is no further option other to want for the Court claim and argue there.

Coupon-mad

BurstingOlive said:

Castle said:

You should be complaining to POPLA about their decision and asking them, which 2 hours weren't paid for.

I would if I could find a way, but all of my research suggests there is no further option other to want for the Court claim and argue there.

No - you have three fightback routes (plus a fourth: the local press) but the complaint routes are:

1. Complain to POPLA (complaints@) - they erred by adding up the payments wrongly which do clearly cover 16 hours and both payments were made while the vehicle remained on site. This case falls squarely under the '5 minute rule' ban* and you want the Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher, or POPLA's Sector Expert to review it.

2. Complain to ParkingEye (see their complaints page/portal) that they misled POPLA into thinking the payments made only covered 14 hours, that their payment terms conflict with each other and this case falls squarely under the '5 minute rule' ban* because both payments (adding up to full payment) were made while the vehicle remained on site. Tell PEye you are a lawyer (sign off with your qualification) and that you will report them to the BPA and DVLA as well as using this POPLA-enabled farce in your response to the MHCLG's Public Consultation.**

3. ...then (ultimately) complain to the BPA AOS and to the DVLA that ParkingEye got your data illegally (without 'reasonable cause' ) because two payments (adding up to full payment for 16 hours) were made while the vehicle remained on site. It is astonishing that POPLA sided with the operator because this case falls squarely under the '5 minute rule' ban.*

* 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6586172/news-on-the-5-minute-rule/p1

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/02/private-parking-charges-five-minute-rule/

** closes next week. PLEASE PLEASE DO THIS PUBLIC CONSULTATION. See my next reply!

Coupon-mad

Before the end of next week please please do the government's Public Consultation.

As I mentioned before, we need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread.

I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.