PCN appeal help - ParkingEye

jg484848

thanks guys... how does this sound?
--------------------------------------

This is a generic “copy and paste” evidence pack that has failed to address the pertinent points…

 

-A mere few minutes was spent trying to add another 24 hour session but discovering this didn't work (despite the signs not disallowing it) we left and parked elsewhere (proven with evidence).
-We gained no amenity from the wasted minutes and ParkingEye had its fee for the 24 hours spent parked.

-The minutes were wasted purely due to their system which they have failed to explain or respond to in their generic evidence pack.

 

-The system only allows 24 hours to be paid at one time… There is/was an extend option, but it simply did not work after several attempts – including following the link in the expiry warning text message (that I paid extra for) saying “extend now” (Evidence already provided)

 

-If you are going to restrict bookings to a maximum of 24 hours at a time, surely it is not beyond expectation to have a system capable of seamlessly extending at any point of that booking? Least not at the expiry time… Without this, you are simply setting up for failure.

 

-Furthermore, the system does not allow you to pay backwards for time spent driving in, parking and exiting… My parking expired the following day (Monday 6th October 2025) at 14.45 and I left the premises at 14.52 according to the ANPR. This is 7 minutes – The Private parking sector single code of practice clearly states a minimum grace period of 10 minutes.

 

-No acknowledgement made in regards to the general lack of upkeep regarding overhanging shrubbery into the spaces, or any consideration for how this may impact timely access once parked.

 

  

*********************

Would it be a good idea to include this final line or not:

 

ParkingEye have referenced compliance with the single code of practice regarding grace periods, and are disputing 13 minute outside of the 24 hours paid parking… if you can only book on their system 24 hours at a time, surely I have a 10 minute grace period to exit, overlayed with a minimum of 5 minutes grace as consideration for extension – which was not possible, so was essentially a new contract… We chose not to renew/agree to new contract so moved to a nearby alternative car park (evidence provided). In which case, we left 2 minutes before the minimum grace period for consideration and have not done anything outside of the grace period best practice guidelines.

jg484848

Also, might any of these nuggets be worthwhile additions?

There was no breach of contract for the following reasons:

1. Frustration of Contract – Your system failure made performance impossible through no fault of my own. A contract cannot be breached when the operator prevents compliance.

2. Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Enforcing a penalty where your system caused the issue is unfair and unenforceable.

3. Grace Period – As a BPA/IPC member you must apply at least a 10-minute grace period. My 7 minute (13 cumulative before and after) stay outside of time parked is reasonable given the payment system malfunction.

4. No Legitimate Interest – Under ParkingEye v Beavis, penalties must protect a legitimate interest. Penalising a motorist who attempted to pay is purely punitive.

Coupon-mad

jg484848 said:

Also, might any of these nuggets be worthwhile additions?

There was no breach of contract for the following reasons:

1. Frustration of Contract – Your system failure made performance impossible through no fault of my own. A contract cannot be breached when the operator prevents compliance.

2. Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Enforcing a penalty where your system caused the issue is unfair and unenforceable.

3. Grace Period – As a BPA/IPC member you must apply at least a 10-minute grace period. My 7 minute (13 cumulative before and after) stay outside of time parked is reasonable given the payment system malfunction.

4. No Legitimate Interest – Under ParkingEye v Beavis, penalties must protect a legitimate interest. Penalising a motorist who attempted to pay is purely punitive.

None of the above as POPLA don't understand legal arguments or statute law.

Your first set of points are good but remove this sentence which could be read in their favour, not yours: "The system only allows 24 hours to be paid at one time…"

jg484848

OK, so I have it to this currently as a draft......

This is a generic “copy and paste” evidence pack that has failed to address the pertinent points…

 

-A mere few minutes was spent trying to add another 24 hour session but discovering this didn't work (despite the signs not disallowing it) we left and parked elsewhere (proven with evidence).

-We gained no amenity from the wasted minutes and ParkingEye had its fee for the 24 hours spent parked.

-The minutes were wasted purely due to their system which they have failed to explain or respond to in their generic evidence pack.

 

-There was an extend option, but it simply did not work after several attempts – including following the link in the expiry warning text message (that I paid extra for) saying “extend now” (Evidence already provided)

 

-If you are going to restrict bookings to a maximum of 24 hours at a time, surely it is not beyond expectation to have a system capable of seamlessly extending at any point of that booking? Least not at the expiry time… Without this, you are simply setting up for failure. Enforcing a penalty where their system caused the issue is unfair.

 

-Furthermore, the system does not allow you to pay backwards for time spent driving in, parking and exiting… My parking expired the following day (Monday 6th October 2025) at 14.45 and I left the premises at 14.52 according to the ANPR. This is 7 minutes – The Private parking sector single code of practice clearly states a minimum grace period of 10 minutes.

 

-No acknowledgement made in regards to the general lack of upkeep regarding overhanging shrubbery into the spaces, or any consideration for how this may impact timely access once parked.

 

-ParkingEye have referenced compliance with the single code of practice regarding grace periods, and are disputing 13 minute outside of the 24 hours paid parking… if you can only book on their system 24 hours at a time, surely you have a 10 minute grace period to exit, overlayed with a minimum of 5 minutes grace as consideration for extension – which was not possible, so was essentially a new contract… We chose not to renew/agree to new contract so moved to a nearby alternative car park (evidence provided). In which case, we left 2 minutes before the minimum grace period for consideration and have not done anything outside of the grace period best practice guidelines.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

The second 24 hr session was indeed a new contract, which they made impossible to perform, so why shouldn't a driver have a minimum 5 minute consideration period to leave, same as an arriving driver would have if they discovered the system wasn't working?

jg484848

OK great, I have one last thing I am considering adding in... what do you think? If not i will submit as above and hope common sense prevails...

-The generic evidence pack provided by ParkingEye references ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]

 

The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that private parking operators may issue charges only if they serve a “legitimate interest” beyond pure profit.

Here, there is no legitimate interest in penalising a motorist who:

• paid for the parking session,
• attempted to extend it,
• and was prevented only by the operator’s own system failure.

This does not protect turnover of spaces or site management; it is purely punitive and therefore unenforceable.

POPLA is required to consider whether the Beavis tests are met. In this case, they are not.

Coupon-mad

Yes add it at the end. 

jg484848

Amazing, thank you!

jg484848

Thanks for all the help, especially @Coupon-mad

My appeal was SUCCESSFUL

A victory for common sense

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857921#Comment_81857921

Great!

Your POPLA appeal was decided by an assessor? If yes please post the full decision in POPLA DECISIONS.