Parkingeye / POPLA unsuccessful - Ilford Retail Park

KnightRS

Hi everyone, happy new year!

I've been registered on the forum for years and had a successful outcome at court with a previous parking company because of the knowledgable community here.  

That said, I can only say that I am disappointed in myself for not revisited for a recent appeal with Parkingeye and POPLA. Maybe I thought that because there was a genuine reason, that I would actually be successful. 

I wanted to get a few opinions from you all before I decide to either pay or go through court... again! 

Summary - 

I visited Ilford Retail Park on 19/09/2025. For those of you that don't know, the car park is kind of split into two sections, as you drive in and turn right, there are just parking bays. If you were to turn left there is a little retail park with a Gym, Lidl, etc. The signage suggests that you pay upon exiting. 2 hours parking is free and anything over you have to pay for. 

Found parking after a while and then returned 10 minutes over the 2 hours, so I have gone to pay on the only machine that was visible with a huge sign on top of it saying "Pay here". I input my VRM and the machine fails to respond, no matter how many times I try. I try to look for a second machine but no alternative methods mentioned on the signs, i.e. app, phone or second machine, so I take a few pictures and leave.In hindsight I probably should have recorded a video instead.

A PCN is issued on 22/09/2025 for £100, with a discount of £60 if paid within 14 days of the PCN being issued. 

---------------------------------------------

I submit an appeal on 30/09/2025:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to my vehicle, registration AA01 ABC, at Ilford Retail Park on 19 September 2025.

The signage at the site makes clear that parking is free for up to two hours, after which payment is required depending on the duration of stay. On this occasion, my vehicle entered at 12:07:32 and exited at 14:33:12, a total stay of two hours and twenty-five minutes. This fell within the three-hour tariff, meaning that a payment of £1.60 was due.

It is important to note that ANPR systems record only the times of entry and exit, not the actual period of parking. The BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 13.1 states:
"You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘consideration period’ to decide whether to stay or go. If the driver chooses to stay then you must allow them a reasonable period of time to leave the car park before you take enforcement action."

In my case, it took approximately ten minutes after entry to locate a space and park, and on departure I spent time attempting to make payment at the machine, which failed to process my input. As a result, the total time the ANPR records is longer than the actual period parked, and the Code requires operators to take this into account.

Before exiting the car park, I attempted to make the required £1.60 payment. I entered my registration number correctly, as evidenced by the attached photograph, but the machine failed to respond when I pressed the buttons to continue. With no alternative method of payment offered on the signage, such as by phone or app, it was impossible for me to complete the transaction despite making a genuine attempt to do so.

The BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 20.11 states:
"Where parking is subject to payment, operators must ensure that machines are maintained in good working order, that there are appropriate instructions on how to use them, and that motorists are not penalised if they have not been able to pay due to a fault with the machine."

This requirement was not met, and the failure lies entirely with the operator’s equipment.

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 13.4 requires that:
"You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. You must allow the driver a minimum of 10 minutes grace period."

My vehicle remained on site for only twenty-five minutes beyond the free two-hour period, much of which was spent trying to use the faulty machine. To issue a penalty under these circumstances is not consistent with the BPA’s guidance.

In contract law, this situation also amounts to frustration of contract. A motorist cannot be bound by a contract where performance is rendered impossible through no fault of their own. I entered the car park on the understanding that payment could be made before exit, but the operator’s failure to provide a working means of payment made this impossible.

In light of the above, the Parking Charge Notice has been incorrectly issued and must be cancelled. If you do not accept this appeal, I require the provision of a POPLA verification code so that the matter may be independently reviewed.

I have attached two images alongside this appeal which I produce as:
Image 1 - Picture of machine & signage
Image 2 - Picture of my registration number inputted into the machine

**IMAGES HERE ARE WRONG WAY AROUND**

---------------------------------------------

On 20/10/2025 I receive a rejection letter:

Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 19 September
2025 at 14:33, at Ilford Retail Park, Essex car park.

We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. Our
records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite
there being payment methods available.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an
independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an
appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information
and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-
services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent
to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative
dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA, as explained above.

Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the
driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).

As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from
the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you will not be able to pay the
discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge
will be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you will no
longer be able to pay the discounted amount and the full value of the charge will be due.
A payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting

www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to
Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference
number on the reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated.
If you have received this correspondence via email, please allow 24 hours for our
systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated
payment line or website.

They attached a letter with POPLA appeals process, but have disregarded my evidence completely.

---------------------------------------------

On 25/10/2025 I submit the appeal to POPLA: 

I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I believe the charge has been issued incorrectly and should be cancelled.

On 19 September 2025 my vehicle entered the car park at 12:07:32 and exited at 14:33:12. This total time includes driving in, finding a space, reading the signs, and later trying to pay before leaving. The signs state that parking is free for up to two hours, with payment required after that. My total stay therefore fell within the three-hour tariff for which the fee was £1.60.

Before leaving, I went to the machine marked “Pay Here” to make payment. I entered my registration number correctly, as shown in the photo I have attached, but the machine failed to respond and would not process payment. There was no mention of any other way to pay and no member of staff on site. I made a genuine attempt to comply with the terms but payment was impossible due to the operator’s own equipment failure.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice (paragraph 20.11) requires operators to make sure machines are maintained in good working order and that motorists are not penalised if they have been unable to pay due to a fault with the machine. ParkingEye has not provided any proof that the machine was working properly at the time. The burden of proof lies with them to show that it was.

ParkingEye’s rejection letter claims “payment methods were available”. However, the signs at Ilford Retail Park only instruct drivers to pay “at the payment machine before exiting”. There is no mention of pay-by-phone, pay-by-app or online payment. While there is a telephone number at the bottom of the sign, it is not described as a payment line. The BPA Code of Practice (paragraphs 19.3 and 19.7) says that signs must be clear and must show all available payment options. The only clear instruction on site was to use the single machine, which I did. When that machine failed, there was no other option – this machine had the words “Pay here” on top of it.

The ANPR system records only entry and exit times, not the actual period of parking. The BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 13.1) says operators must allow a reasonable period on arrival and departure. It took about ten minutes to find a space on arrival and several minutes at the end of my stay were spent trying to pay at the faulty machine. The actual parked time was therefore less than the total duration shown.

The BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 13.4) also requires a minimum grace period of ten minutes after the end of any permitted stay. Much of the extra time beyond the two-hour free period was spent attempting to pay. Issuing a charge in these circumstances goes against the Code’s guidance and basic fairness.

In contract law, a contract is frustrated when performance becomes impossible through no fault of the person involved. The operator’s failure to provide working equipment made payment impossible, so no enforceable contract was formed.

The £100 charge is also disproportionate and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which deems terms unfair if they cause a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The alleged unpaid tariff was only £1.60, and I made every reasonable effort to pay.

I have requested from ParkingEye a copy of all data relating to this event, including any payment machine records, and will forward any relevant material to POPLA if it is received.

To summarise, I made a genuine attempt to pay using the only payment method clearly advertised. The operator has not shown that its equipment was working, has failed to follow the BPA Code of Practice regarding equipment maintenance, signage clarity, consideration periods and grace periods, and has applied a charge that is excessive and unfair.

For these reasons I ask that POPLA allow my appeal and direct ParkingEye to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

Supporting evidence:

1) Photograph showing registration number entered into the payment machine
2) ParkingEye rejection letter (20 October 2025)
3) Photograph of the tariff board and signage at the car park

---------------------------------------------

On 04/11/2025 I receive Parkingeye's evidence bundle through POPLA. It's 50 pages of bore but a few interesting things I thought would actually go in my favour.

They included these nuggets:

Car Park - Ilford Retail Park, Essex
Date of Event - 19/09/2025
Time entered - 12:07:32
Time of exit - 14:33:12

Redacted Plate	Start Date	End Date	Duration	Payment
LM1***	19/09/2025 10:14	19/09/2025 16:14	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
GX6***	19/09/2025 10:36	19/09/2025 16:36	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
RA2***	19/09/2025 11:53	19/09/2025 17:53	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
NL7***	19/09/2025 11:58	19/09/2025 14:58	3 hours 0 minutes	£1.60
SV1***	19/09/2025 12:25	19/09/2025 18:25	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
AU2***	19/09/2025 13:02	19/09/2025 19:02	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
MR1***	19/09/2025 13:11	19/09/2025 16:11	3 hours 0 minutes	£1.60
SY6***	19/09/2025 13:14	19/09/2025 19:14	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50
LG1***	19/09/2025 13:26	19/09/2025 16:26	3 hours 0 minutes	£1.60
WP1***	19/09/2025 13:40	19/09/2025 19:40	6 hours 0 minutes	£3.50

So, within the evidence bundle they suggest there are two machines. They have provided 'evidence' that other vehicles have paid. Ok... but where is this mythical second machine? Well it's on the bloody retail end of the car park where the Lidl is!!! Nowhere near where I parked and there is NO signage anywhere around the place I parked that says that there is an second machine and its location. 

Importantly, the minimum stay for all the cars that paid was 3 hours. So this leads me back to their 50 pages of bull****. They provided compelling evidence about their ANPR being accurate but NO evidence to say how their ANPR corresponds with the machines!! I think the machine has not recognised that I have overstayed and therefore did not prompt me for payment!

The same day, I commented upon their bundle on POPLA: 

I have reviewed the operator’s evidence bundle and wish to make the following comments.

ParkingEye’s evidence does not demonstrate that the charge was issued correctly. Much of their submission is generic text unrelated to my case and fails to address the key issue that payment was attempted but impossible due to a fault with their equipment.

Their pack confirms that the site has only two payment kiosks, yet no site map or photographs are provided to show where these are located or whether they are clearly signposted. The signage I encountered directed drivers simply to “Pay Here” at the single machine visible near the exit. No notice, map or instruction pointed to any second machine or other means of payment. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraphs 19.3 and 19.7, require that signs be clear, legible and show all available payment options. The operator has failed to comply with this requirement.

My attached photograph shows my registration number correctly entered on the payment machine. The operator’s own “Whitelist Lookup” confirms that no terminal entry was recorded for my vehicle, proving the machine failed to process the transaction. This aligns with my account that the machine became unresponsive after inputting my details. ParkingEye has supplied no maintenance logs, engineer reports or system records to prove that the machine was operational on 19 September 2025. The BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 20.11, states that operators must ensure machines are maintained in good working order and that motorists are not penalised if payment cannot be made due to a fault. The operator has not met that obligation.

The operator includes a table showing other vehicles that made payments that day. This does not show which kiosk was used or that both machines were functional. More importantly, their own data undermines their case: the table shows that drivers staying for about three hours paid £1.60, which matches the posted tariff. My total stay was 2 hours 25 minutes, well within that same tariff band. It is entirely plausible that the system did not recognise that I had exceeded the two-hour free period and therefore failed to prompt for or process payment. This explains why my registration appears on the machine screen but no payment record exists. Such a system error lies with the operator, not the motorist who attempted to comply.

ParkingEye’s reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is misplaced. In Beavis the driver knowingly overstayed a free-stay period. In this case payment was due and I made a genuine attempt to pay; it was prevented by equipment failure. The circumstances are fundamentally different.

The operator also cites “grace periods” and compliance with the “Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice”. That Code is not yet mandatory for existing sites until December 2026, although its principles mirror those of the BPA Code by requiring clear signage, working payment systems and fair treatment. Even under the transition period, the operator’s practices fall short of both codes’ standards.

My total time on site included time spent parking, reading the signs and attempting to pay. The BPA Code of Practice paragraphs 13.1 and 13.4 require operators to allow reasonable consideration and grace periods; applying these, my stay was within permitted time.

Their own case history shows the charge was generated automatically by a “system check/manual check” before any DVLA request. This confirms the process was automated and no individual assessed whether a payment attempt occurred or whether the machine was faulty. The rejection letter I received was equally generic and ignored every point and piece of evidence I supplied. This breaches paragraph 23.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires operators to review each appeal carefully and respond appropriately to the evidence provided.

In summary:

• I made a genuine attempt to pay using the only clearly advertised machine.

• My photograph and the operator’s own records show that the machine failed to register my attempt.

• The operator has produced no proof that both machines were working or clearly signposted.

• Their evidence supports the likelihood of a system error preventing payment.

• They have breached multiple BPA Code of Practice requirements, including paras 19.3, 19.7, 20.11 and 23.4.

• Their conduct also fails to meet the emerging standards of the Single Code of Practice, which reinforces the need for fairness, transparency and properly maintained equipment.

• The £100 charge is disproportionate given the £1.60 tariff and contrary to the fairness principles of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

For these reasons the operator has not demonstrated that the parking charge was issued correctly or fairly. I respectfully request that POPLA allow my appeal and direct ParkingEye Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

---------------------------------------------

On 06/01/2026 I receive POPLA decision that my appeal is unsuccessful: 

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have
summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to
my conclusion. The appellant says that:

• The signage states 2 hours free with payment after that. 

• Before leaving they went to pay for parking but the parking machine wasn’t working and there was no other way to make a payment. 

• They made a genuine attempt to pay for parking but due to the faulty parking machine they couldn't.

• They raised 20.11 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice in relation to parking machines and equipment being faulty.

• They stated the signage say’s to pay before exiting and raised 13.1 of the BPA code of practice about arrival time and time to look for a parking space and also raised 13.4 of the BPA code of practice in relation to grace period. 

• They raised contract law and feel it is frustration of contract as payment was impossible. 

• They raised the £100 is disproportionate and in contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

• The operator initial appeal response didn’t address any of their initial appeal points and raised 23.4 of the BPA code of practice. 

• The appellant added in the motorist's comments section that the operator's evidence pack is generic and unrelated to their grounds of appeal. 

• The information report doesn’t prove which payments were made at which parking machine and that the minimum recorded time was 3 hours and feel it is entirely plausible and highly likely that the parking machine didn’t recognise that they exceeded the 2 hour maximum stay. 

• They feel the Parking Eye vs Beavis Supreme Court case is misplaced as the case is in relation to a free parking period. 

• They raised the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) in relation to signage which isn't applicable until December 2026 in relation to clear signage and feel the signage
falls short of the requirements. The appellant included photographic evidence of the parking
machines not working (times two) and the operator's initial appeal response in support of their
appeal. The evidence has been included in my assessment.

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge
notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park
on the day. POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector.

Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in this car park is a pay for parking car park. I note the appellant's comments and appreciate they feel that they couldn't pay for parking on the date in question. The appellant states in their appeal that they read the signage and were aware that there was a 2 hour free period and that additional payment was required before exiting the car park. This proves to me that the appellant saw and were able to read the signage and proves the signage was clear and visible. They raised signage in Section 19.3 of the code says operators need to have signs that are clear and unambiguous and set out the terms and conditions. and 19.7 of the BPA code of practice.

Parking Eye have ensured their signage is compliant with the Single code of practice. This sector
Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the
International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking

Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022.

The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. 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. 

Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The operator's evidence proves clear entrance signage to adequately advise that the car park is privately owned land. 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. I am satis!ed that the signage on site meets the single code of practice and clearly tells motorist's the car park is a 2 hour free car park and payment can be made at any time before leaving the car park. Additionally, the signage doesn’t state payment must be made on exit but clearly tells motorists to make a payment at any time before leaving the car park. 

I would expect the appellant to have checked before the free 2 hour period was up to see if they could pay for additional parking and if they couldn't to leave within the 2 hour free period. Whilst the appellant states they made a genuine attempt to pay and that the parking machine was faulty, I can see many other motorists were able to pay using the parking machines and I can see their photographic evidence only demonstrates their vehicle registration entered into the parking machine and does not prove to me that the parking machine was faulty. 

Furthermore, the onus is on the motorist to check is there are more parking machines on site to make use of. The site had 2 parking machines to use. The operator's evidence may not state which parking machines were used, however, proves motorists were able to pay on the date in question. 

They raised 20.11 of the BPA code of practice, however no 20.11 of the BPA code of practice exists in version 9, which was the last version before the single code of practice came into practice or version 8 which was January 2020. 

Likewise, they raised 13.4 in relation to grace periods, however, 13.4 is from the version 9 of the code of practice which refers to unauthorised motorists not being permitted a minute consideration period. 

They raised 13.1 of the code of practice in relation to a grace period, as they stated that it took 10 minutes to find a parking space and several minutes to try to pay and feel the total parking time was less that indicated. 13.1 is no longer applicable and is replaced by 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 a consideration period would be about 5 minutes. They feel that their parking time was less than indicated, however, the time spent in the car park was 2 hours and 25 minutes and as they exceeded the free stay, they were obliged to pay for the additional time or needed to leave the car park before they exceeded the 2 hours.

There is insufficient evidence to prove that both parking machines were out of order. I note they
raised that there was frustration of contract, however, this was not the case as there were 2
parking machines on site and the operator only demonstrated that they tried to pay at one parking
machine and as previously stated, they should have checked before the 2 hour free time expired to ensure they could pay for any additional parking time. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is unfair and disproportionate contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. 

The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. 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. 

The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satis!ed 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. Whilst the Parking Eye vs Beavis Supreme Court case is in relation to a free car park the principles remain the same and are relevant in this instance. They raised the operator's initial appeal response didn’t respond to any of their grounds of appeal. If the appellant has any issues surrounding the operator’s appeal process or initial appeal response, they will need to take this up with the operator directly. POPLA is an appeals service; we are unable to comment on the operator’s appeal process. 

Customer service issues should be directed to the operator. Ultimately, the crux of this case is the operator's evidence proves that the parking machines were operational on the date in question and the appellant's photographic evidence does not su"ciently prove to me that the parking machine they tried to pay at was not working. By only trying to pay after the free period ended means the onus was on them to ensure they tried all parking machines to pay for parking. 

Furthermore, they could have called the operator on the helpline provided at the bottom of the signage to gain advice and clari!cation from the operator directly. Based on all the evidence provided to me, the appellant never paid for parking on the date in question and the appellant is liable for the charge.Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

---------------------------------------------

The end.... so chat.. sorry that was long. Am I cooked?

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it. You are right that you needed better evidence that the machine wasn't working and a video would have been good.

KnightRS

Coupon-mad said:

Just ignore it. You are right that you needed better evidence that the machine wasn't working and a video would have been good.

I know, I'm so gutted. Not sure what I was thinking. 

Ignore it as in let them take me to court and give it a go there or... pay up?

Coupon-mad

Obviously no paying!

KnightRS

Coupon-mad said:

Obviously no paying!

Out of interest, I saw something what I think is absolutely daft but maybe it's standard practice with these losers..

Within their contracts / agreements with the landowner that they supplied in their evidence bundle: as opposed to having the names of the landowners printed underneath their (redacted) signatures, they have written 'Managing Director' and separately 'CEO'. 

I have never heard of someone writing their job role where they are supposed to be printing their names. Is that allowed?

James_Poisson

Well their evidence if that's all it was tells you nothing:

1. An original plan of intent for allocation of signage on installation which is undated and is what it says an allocation plan not evidence the signs were placed or existed on the day. That should have been debunked.
2. An undated "site overview" which is basically as point 1 but in this case just a Google Earth screen grab with coloured squares placed on it it is not evidence, they could have made that up any time.
3. Their "evidence" of payments if that is the only submission does not cover the time you tried to pay it stops 40 minutes prior to your attempt as the "Start Date Column" is the pay time, you needed the next hours records at least too, but the dim POPLA assessor has bought into it.
4. POPLA stated: Parking Eye have ensured their signage is compliant with the Single code of practice Did they actually provide evidence that the signage was compliant on the day of the incident I bet they didn't. 
5. ANPR cases are remote time only cheap profit makers the on the day evidence is usually confined to that with a master copy signage submission which POPLA always side with unless you take them by the hand and point out their evidence is; neither dated, on site or current.

You need to drag POPLA kicking and screaming with you they like to fall on the side of their paymasters, e.g. if the signage is missing you need proof you cannot just say it was missing. 

Unfortunately you have also made some mistakes with up to date facts e.g. the Joint COP, Beavis, but never mind as C-m says no need to cave in to these bullying halfwits.

Car1980

Useful to pay the parking company on an app
when you get home, even if it's a different location and keep the evidence, in situations like this.