Carflow, Cambridge Leisure Surface car park

CarlosFandangoWheels

Driver entered the car park for the purposes of performing work in Sainsbury's Local. Took some time to locate the manager and then the manager was busy so the time between entry and exit was 28 minutes. Turned out that the work was not required so the driver did not sign in at Sainsbury's Local. Driver was not aware that a parking charge was to be paid (80p) and now has a £100 PCN. The PCN appears to be POFA compliant. In fact the first notice keeper had was the reminder.

Date of event: 2-Oct 2025

PCN postal date: 8-Oct 2025

PCN issue/given date: 10-Oct 2025

Date of reminder: 17-OCt 2025

The car park was clearly designed to be for the occupants of the adjacent hotel, which is now closed. The driver states that this site's car parking was previously free.

Appeals sent to Sainsbury's, Saville's as landowner and to Carflow. No responses received yet. 

CarlosFandangoWheels

PCN shown below

Coupon-mad

Carflow are a bit different in that we suggest you don't use a template appeal and they might be reasonable. But you have already appealed. Hope you didn't use a template?

CarlosFandangoWheels

Hi, I read about Carflow on here so I didn't use a template. I just explained the circumstances and said there was no intention to do them out of 80p.

Coupon-mad

Good, so let's wait & see.

CarlosFandangoWheels

Weird... the registered keeper hasn't paid but the e-mail from Carflow suggests that someone has:

Thank you for contacting Carflow.

This car park is private land and Carflow has been engaged by the landowner to ensure that motorists pay the correct parking tariff.

You have suggested that you did not receive the original parking charge. Please see below consignment details showing that this parking charge was sent on 08-OCT-25:

MR XXX XXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXX 8/10/2025 13:49 8/10/2025 13:53 XXXXXXXX

Carflow has installed 13 signs in Cambridge Leisure Short Stay Car Park, with a map in the attached Site Appendix. Erected on 31-Jul-24, these signs are clearly visible, and the entrance sign directs motorists to the rules signs for further details. Our signage complies with the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme, confirmed by the BPA. The signs are 33% larger than required (600mm x 450mm). Motorists should not assume they can stay on this private land without checking the signs, which are clearly visible day and night.

We would like to clarify that while payment can be made via RingGo, there is also a payment terminals on site. We have checked our records and we have payments for other VRNs before, during and after your stay in the car park indicating that payment was possible at this time. Our processes do not disadvantage any individual based on a protected characteristic, and we take our obligations under the Equality Act 2010 seriously. The requirement to pay for parking applies equally to all drivers, and the available payment methods are designed to ensure that no one is excluded from complying with those terms.

You suggest that the parking charge is disproportionate. We would like to direct your attention to the Supreme Court decision "ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67". In this case, the judges maintained:

"With regard to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”), the charge did not come within the basic test for unfairness. ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in inducing customers not to overstay, in order to efficiently manage the car park ..... The charge was no higher than was necessary to achieve that objective. Objectively the reasonable motorist would have, and often did, agree to the charge.

"However, the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin [99]. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices [100-101].”

We therefore feel that the Parking Charge issued is fair and reasonable. A copy of the judgment can be found here: (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf).

By parking, the driver agreed to the terms displayed on-site. As the full tariff and correct VRN were not provided, we must reject your appeal.
 

As this parking charge has been paid, we now consider this matter closed.

 

No further action is required by you.

Kind regards,

Carflow Team

ChirpyChicken

if it says on the portal its paid, then its matter closed (assume not a lease car etc)

CarlosFandangoWheels

Yes, not a lease car. Maybe Sainsbury's or the landowner have paid/cancelled it

Coupon-mad

Yes it can only be that!