EV dock parking ticket from Parking Eye - Holiday Inn Preston Tesla Charging point.

12b3

Hi All

I have been sent an invoice for charging at the holiday inn at Preston , it's the exact same location as reported in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626741/pcn-from-parking-eye-from-holiday-inn-preston-south-company-car/p3

On this occasion the driver coudn't leave the vehical while charging as they had a disabled passanger with them, even if they were aware of the requirment to register the vehical at reception it would have been a struggle to go and do it , reading the other thread I saw the hotel managment didn't help much so I didn't bother emailing them and appealed directly to Parking eye. I provided copy of the disabled person's blue badge and the charging receipt as proof of patronage.

I probaly have left it a bit to late to seek advise but I really want to avoid going to Tribunal for this , can you advise what is the best course of action at this point in time, I am thinking of emailing Litigation team as advised in th newbie forum, can I still get a POPLA code ?

The sequesnce of events so far is as follows -

Date of online appeal to Parking eye: 15/11/2025

This is proably my initial mistake of not using the template in the newbie forum I had submittied the following -

"The driver was a customer on site charging the vehcial on site as a patron , please find attced receipt of confirmation of charging , driver was accompannied by a disabled child passanger , there were no adequate signs visible to the driver from their vantage point to see there was a vehical registration required , even if they were aware of the requirment to register the vehical at reception it would have been a struggle to go and do it due to the challenges of having a disabled underage passanger who has atendancy to elope if left unattended.

The driver feels as a patron this charge & requirment to go inside the hotel to resgister is unjust given the circusmtances they were under , the managment should provide facility to register the vehical near the charging port or give the option to do it by phone or an app. The tesla app also did not indicate a requirment to register the vehical at this location

I therfore request you to cancel the fine

Please find attached a copy of the blue badge registered with this vehical and a receipt of the charging access point."

Recevied below letter by email from Parking eye asking me to name the driver: 03/12/2025

Recevied below letter by email from Parking eye rejecting my appeal: 05/01/2025

Recevied below letter by email from Parking eye stating I didn't ask for POPLA code : 27/01/2025 and to still pay the £60

How do I make the POPLA appeal ? Am I in time to do it ?

Many thanks for your help

Regards

i12b3

Coupon-mad

You do a POPLA appeal online using the code they gave you but you will need photographic evidence of the bay.

Is there photo evidence on the other thread, showing no ParkingEye sign nearby? If yes, use their photos.

If not, go there this weekend and take pictures to prove the lack of signs visible from that bay.

POPLA is not a Tribunal but it is worth trying if you can get photo evidence.

And as long as the POPLA Code on that rejection letter was issued less than 30 days ago. Was it? What date?

By the way, your child doesn't elope' which means running off to get secretly married!

12b3

Date on the rejection letter with POPLA code is - 05/01/2026

So I still have time , I can see there was lack of sign from the google photos as well , as well as others who have taken , I live far away from the location so cannot go back to take photos but there are plenty on google maps of the parking lot and sinage so hope I can use that.

Is there a tempalte I can adapt realted to having disabeld passnager for the POPLA appeal?

12b3

The sinage on the pole is quite small to read and the extra sinage they have put on the charging unit feels like some Tesla branding info and can be easily missed , is there a rule that the sinage related to parking / charging on private land should be in a paticular font ?

Coupon-mad

Agreed. Poor signage.

To find a similar case, search the forum for something like

POPLA EV bay signs

12b3

Hi all, today is my last day for submitting a POPLA appeal , can you please review the below and let me know if I stand a chance here - also wanted to know if the appeal wasn't allowed will the charge double up from the discounted £60 to £120?

POPLA Refrence:
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
Site: Holiday Inn, Reedfield Place, Walton Summit Rd, Walton Summit Centre, Preston PR5 8AA

I submit this appeal on the grounds that no contract was formed due to inadequate and misleading signage at the EV charging bay, lack of visible terms at the point of docking, ambiguity as to whether EV charging constitutes parking, failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, and failure to provide adequate notice under POFA 2012.

1- Inadequate, misleading and ambiguous signage – no contract formed EV charger signage (Figure 1)

The only notice present at the EV charging bay at the time was a small red sign

mounted directly on a Tesla-branded charger, making it appear to be manufacturer or operational information

. This sign:

Is small and not readable from a docked vehicle

Uses red text on a red Tesla-branded charger, failing to comply with BPA-advised font, size, style, contrast, and wording

Does not prominently identify the parking operator

Does not state any parking charge

Does not clearly communicate parking terms

Relevant BPA CoP:

Section 19.2 & Appendix B: Signage must be “conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language; terms should not be obscured by other information or branding.”

Section 19.7: Terms must be clear and unambiguous.

BPA guidance requires sans-serif fonts, legible size, high contrast, and clear wording (e.g., stating that parking constitutes acceptance of a contract and how to comply). Red text blending into the charger fails all of these criteria.

Applying the reasonable motorist (Clapham omnibus) test, such a styled sign could be understood as operational EV charging information, not contractual terms. The alleged charge is an onerous term requiring enhanced prominence under Lord Denning’s Red Hand Rule (J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw) Ironically, although the sign is red, it fails entirely to draw attention to any contractual charge.

As confirmed in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking and Vine v Waltham Forest, terms not clearly communicated before acceptance are unenforceable.

2-Distance from ParkingEye signage (Figure 2)

From the photo it is clear that there is a single line of charging bays with one mounted pole sign. The vehicle was docked in the last EV charging bay, which is significantly distant from this signage containing contractual information, BPA font, size, style, or wording standards.

From this location:

No signage is visible or readable

No instruction to register at reception is visible

No parking charge is displayed

Relevant BPA CoP:

Section 19.3: Signs must be positioned so that drivers can see them when they enter the site and when they dock.

This failure to provide visible signage at the point of docking breaches the Code. Supported by Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106.

3-Parking tariff signage does not apply to EV charging (Figure 3)

Signage on the mounted pole states “Parking Tariffs Apply” and refers to parking charges for non-hotel residents. However:

EV charging is not parking. No signage states charging constitutes parking - the vehicle was docked not parked

No signage explains that a parking contract applies in addition to charging, No language in the PE sign distinguishes between parking and docking.

Relevant BPA CoP:

Section 19.7: Parking terms must be clear and unambiguous, using legible font, size, contrast, and wording as per BPA guidance.

Any ambiguity must be interpreted contra proferentem (against the operator).

4-Equality Act 2010 – failure to make reasonable adjustments

The driver had a disabled passenger and could not leave the vehicle unattended. Requiring registration inside the hotel, while providing no information of alternatives at or within sight of the EV chargers, places disabled users at a substantial disadvantage.

Relevant law and guidance:

Equality Act 2010 Sections 20 & 29

Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4

No reasonable adjustment (QR code, keypad, app-based registration) was provided within sight of the EV charging bay used, rendering the alleged contract unenforceable.

Figure 4 – Blue Badge

Figure 5 – Charging receipt

POFA and Beavis distinguished

ParkingEye failed to meet the “adequate notice” requirement under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This case differs from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where signage was “large, prominent and unavoidable.” Here, signage is small, misleading, distant, and fails BPA font, style, size, contrast, and wording standards.

Conclusion

Having considered the evidence, it is clear that signage at the EV charging bays was not sufficiently clear, prominent, or unambiguous to bring the parking terms to the attention of the driver. Furthermore, the requirement to register inside the hotel, without reasonable adjustments for disabled users, breaches the Equality Act 2010. As a result, no contract was formed, and the parking charge is unenforceable. Accordingly, I require the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice and request this appeal be allowed.

Figure 1 – EV Charger Signage (Use of non complaint font Tesla-branded, present at time of event)

Figure 2 – EV Charging Bay Layout showing distance from ParkingEye signage and the last bay

Figure 3 – Parking tariff signage elsewhere on site (no reference to EV charging)

Figure 4 – Blue Badge

Figure 5 – Charging receipt

Coupon-mad

"today is my last day for submitting a POPLA appeal "

I doubt it. The codes don't expire on day 28 despite what your read. Instead, read post 3 of the NEWBIES thread which tells you how to do POPLA and that you have until day 33.

12b3

The PE letter stated I have 28 days.

I checked popla post 3 at newbies, most of the stuff from there is already here I will add the points about PE contracts and anpr accuracy although these are from posts from 2016 so not sure ho will be? Apart from that is this appeal good to go ?

Wonder if it is too much to ask the forum to proof read this ?

Many thanks in advance for your help

Coupon-mad

"The PE letter stated I have 28 days."

We know! Please don't tell us that… I told you how long you actually have. I've done POPLA appeals since they started in 2013.

This is nothing new. It's just POPLA, that nobody cares about anyway. Nobody pays either way.

If you look at ANY thread linked in the top pinned Announcement: 'POPLA Decisions' (you must have read some of the recent ParkingEye successes and losses there, as a steer? They include EV bay appeals) you see that everyone posts a draft on their thread and all are told they have 33 days not 28.

We haven't had a chance to look at it yet but DO NOT include a close-up of that ParkingEye sign in your appeal. Only show the wide view of the EV bays.

Patience: you have till day 33. Honestly.

DO NOT SUBMIT IT TODAY.

MothballsWallet

Also, can they use the Tesla company font (which will be trademarked by Tesla themselves) on their pathetic signs without permission?

Coupon-mad

This might help:

ParkingEye case like yours: 

No t&cs signs at EV bays in car park:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81624097#Comment_81624097