POPLA Appeal - Park Avenue Southall

aconfusedcat

I see the below mentioned in the code but it doesn't apply in my scenario as I can park greater than 20 minutes such as an hour or all day (8am-11pm).

"NOTE 2: The grace period does not apply to short stay areas – controlled land where the parking of a vehicle is permissible for a limited period not greater than 30 minutes, for example at airport and railway station drop off and pick up zones." 

Coupon-mad

Ok so I think you can say this P&D site fits in the third row of the consideration/grace period table in the Joint Code, therefore a consideration period of 5 mins applies plus an end grace period of a minimum ten minutes.

As such, there was no breach and the appeal made it very clear that the driver was at all times engaged in trying to pay in those early minutes once parked, but the queue and the poorly-functioning system caused a slight delay, not any conduct of the driver. Either way, the consideration and grace period allowances were not exceeded.

aconfusedcat

Coupon-mad said:

Ok so I think you can say this P&D site fits in the third row of the consideration/grace period table in the Joint Code, therefore a consideration period of 5 mins applies plus an end grace period of a minimum ten minutes.

As such, there was no breach and the appeal made it very clear that the driver was at all times engaged in trying to pay in those early minutes once parked, but the queue and the poorly-functioning system caused a slight delay, not any conduct of the driver. Either way, the consideration and grace period allowances were not exceeded.

Oh that's sweet, I thought the 5 minute consideration period only applied if you did not park else you just had the 10 minute grace period? If it does that's brilliant! I will better reword my comment tomorrow so I would be grateful if you could review when you're free. Thank you for your help. 

Coupon-mad

"I thought the 5 minute consideration period only applied if you did not park else you just had the 10 minute grace period?"

Well, as part of the Code Steering Group, I helped write/suggest those Consideration & Grace period tables for the 2022 Government Code (withdrawn after a legal challenge).

It was NEVER intended that there is to be no consideration period for people who decide to park and stay and this will also not be the case when the Labour Government reintroduce the Code in a few months.

I know there are over 30 cynical changes in the Joint Code because I counted and listed them for the Government in 2024, so they wouldn't be taken in by thinking the Joint Code was essentially one and the same as the withdrawn, fair Code that the Tories had worked on. The differences were all utter scammery but I lose track now of what they were.

Now, if the Joint Code has got it stated somewhere that a consideration period "doesn't apply when drivers stay" who actually cares? That's clearly abject scammery - would never get past a Judge - and it really doesn't matter if you lose at POPLA because you won't be paying.

aconfusedcat

Coupon-mad said:

"I thought the 5 minute consideration period only applied if you did not park else you just had the 10 minute grace period?"

Well, as part of the Code Steering Group, I helped write/suggest those Consideration & Grace period tables for the 2022 Government Code (withdrawn after a legal challenge).

It was NEVER intended that there is to be no consideration period for people who decide to park and stay and this will also not be the case when the Labour Government reintroduce the Code in a few months.

I know there are over 30 cynical changes in the Joint Code because I counted and listed them for the Government in 2024, so they wouldn't be taken in by thinking the Joint Code was essentially one and the same as the withdrawn, fair Code that the Tories had worked on. The differences were all utter scammery but I lose track now of what they were.

Now, if the Joint Code has got it stated somewhere that a consideration period "doesn't apply when drivers stay" who actually cares? That's clearly abject scammery - would never get past a Judge - and it really doesn't matter if you lose at POPLA because you won't be paying.

Thanks, I'm a bit confused because in the Code it states a minimum of 5 minutes for consideration period and 10 minutes for the grace period. I have seen in other comments that others refer it as minimum of 10 minutes - are they including the consideration period? It doesn't state in the Code that the consideration period doesn't apply if you park but points out that for the consideration period

"This is not relevant where there is evidence that a consideration period has ended other than entry and exit onto land. The minimum consideration period occurs when a parking operator assumes after a set period of time that the consideration period has ended." 

Since payment was made 7 minutes they must apply the minimum 5 minutes since they are relying on ANPR entry and exit times and my ticket shows 18:22.

I have made a slight change to my POPLA comment to emphasise not exceeding the consideration or grace period as you said so would appreciate if you could review it.

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 20 minutes of parking was paid for, beginning at 18:22 and ending at 18:42 on 22/08/2025.

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 3 Minutes

ParkingEye’s ANPR data records a total stay of 33 minutes. This equates to an alleged “overstay” of just 3 minutes beyond the paid duration.

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 5.1, 5.2  and Annex B require that for this type of car park:

• A minimum 5-minute 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 18:22 to 18:42.
• The vehicle exited at 18:48:36.
• The alleged 3 minute overstay is well within the minimum 10-minute mandatory grace period.
  

Furthermore, the driver was at all times engaged in trying to pay in those early minutes once parked, but the queue and the poorly-functioning system caused a slight delay.

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 and narrow car park, locate and park safely at a bay (approx. 1 1/2 minutes),
• wait for a driver to finish using the machine (approx. 2 minutes), 
• wait for a beggar begging for cash to move away from the machine (approx. 2  minutes).
• needed to type the registration number correctly and find the correct change (approx 2 minutes). 

This 7-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 211-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 211-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 car park dated April 2024. These do not accurately reflect how the parking would appear under normal conditions in person at the time of the alleged parking event in August 2025. Since the parking event occured during the evening, poor lighting as seen in the ANPR entrance footage indicates that the headlights wouldn't have clearly shown the entrance signage. There is no light on the pole so reading the sign would be more difficult during the parking event since it was dark.

Moreover, the images fail to demonstrate the tight corners and narrow and difficult layout to manoeuvre in the car park, which directly affects the time it takes a driver to locate a space and park carefully. 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:

• The driver paid for 20 minutes of parking.
• The stay exceeded the paid period by only 211 seconds.
• This is fully covered by the BPA’s mandatory 10-minute minimum grace period.
  

The PCN has been issued contrary to the BPA Code of Practice and is unenforceable since the consideration and grace periods were not exceeded.

I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.

Coupon-mad

Looks ok. Worth a shot but POPLA isn't good.

aconfusedcat

Coupon-mad said:

Looks ok. Worth a shot but POPLA isn't good.

Alright, thank you for your help! I'm a little hopeful since the person whose template I followed was successful but they overstayed by 6 seconds, not 3 minutes like I did. If it fails, I'll come back when they start chasing us. 

Coupon-mad

Copied from the POPLA Decisions thread:

aconfusedcat said:

Hi, my appeal against ParkingEye got rejected.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Barry Arledge

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They parked between 18:20 and 18:48 and purchased 20 minutes of parking time • An insufficient grace period was given • A consideration period should be given • Signage is not adequate or sufficiently prominent • There is insufficient notice of the parking charge sum • No evidence of landowner authority • The driver needed to wait for others to pay before them • The PCN sum is disproportionate After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal highlighting signage visibility at night. The appellant explains reasons they do not accept the operator’s rebuttals. The appellant has provided a PDF document expanding on their appeal grounds as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has already identified themselves of the driver of the vehicle this day when appealing to Parking Eye Limited. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The time and date stamped Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images demonstrate to me that the appellant remained within the operator’s controlled parking area for a duration of 33 minutes and 31 seconds between 18:15:05 and 18:48:36. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. Section 3.1.4 of the Code states signs informing drivers that a parking charge is applicable must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main text. 

On paid parking sites, the charge must be in a font no smaller than the tariffs or numbers. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. Notably, the PCN sum is shown is large white lettering against a contrasting black background. The sum is present in a text size larger than the tariff information displayed. Section 3.1.6 of the Single Code of Practice states that signs should be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions, including during dusk and in the dark if the land is accessible at those times. The signs must be installed at a height that takes into account where the signs will be viewed from, and whether vehicle headlights will illuminate the signs in the dark. The operator’s site plan show the positions of signage placed directly onto lighting poles in what is a small car park. The appellant says they went to a machine and purchased 20 minutes of parking time. The pay terminal is positioned about 3 car widths from signage placed on a lighting pole. If signage was unclear or not sufficiently readable in the lighting conditions this day, it is unclear what prompted the appellant to address the machine and make a parking payment. The appellant has provided no evidence of a lack of adequate lighting. I find the operator’s case more compelling and conclude signage was sufficiently visible at 18:15 this day. 

The terms of use require motorists to “Pay for the full duration on your stay…”. In this case that was over 33 minutes. The tariff board clearly explained a payment of £1.00 (shown on the image sent of the pay and display ticket purchased at 18:22) authorised a stay of “Up to 20 minutes” only. I have no reason to doubt the appellant had needed to wait for others to pay before they could complete their own parking payment. When they did pay, they needed to make a payment that covered their full duration of stay. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case the appellant opted to stay and made a payment at a payment machine. A parking contract was formed and the appellant needed to pay for the full duration of stay if they did not want to get a PCN for £100. If they did not want to accept the terms, the appellant could have left in that consideration period and parked elsewhere. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. In this case a 10 minute grace period would be warranted. I would not expect a PCN to be issued before the authorised period of parking (20 minutes) and the grace period (10 minutes) had been exceeded. 33 minutes and 31 seconds is in excess of the sum of both though. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. 

In this case the operator has sent a document that is sufficient for me to conclude they are enforcing parking terms with the agreement on the landowner. The appellant has provided no evidence that casts doubt on this. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is disproportionate or does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I note the appellant inserted a website link in their appeal document. POPLA do not access such links for data security reasons. 

After reviewing all the evidence available I find the operator has present the more compelling case. After considering the evidence from both parties, I conclude the appellant did not purchase appropriate parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.