ParkingEye Appeal Paused 28-Days Pending Driver

g60racing

Got a ticket through despite paying for parking the Vehicle, paid a bit late as the App was appalling (hardly functional). I appealed via post (should of done online looking at newbie notes - but its done now). The appeal has been paused pending the registered keeper providing the driver, if not provided it states the registered keeper will be used to recover charges.

So given I have already done an appeal to ParkingEye should I just ignore request for driver? As I've already stated I would not provide that detail in the previous letter.

<Insert scan of Letter>

Original Appeal Letter

I write as the registered keeper of vehicle registration <VRN REMOVED> to appeal Parking Charge Notice <REMOVED> relating to St Benedicts Court Shopping Centre, Huntingdon, on <DATE REMOVED>.

I do not admit liability and I will not be identifying the driver, in line with my rights under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

1. Parking was paid for in full

A valid parking session was purchased for this vehicle for the material period. I attach:

• A copy of the Apple Pay / card transaction on <date removed> 2026 for £1.90 to Super Payments / Evology Parking, Chorley, which is the payment processor for your parking system.
• Screenshots from my banking app confirming the same transaction and date/time.
• The Evology Pay receipt showing the booking confirmation, location, date, time of payment (10:52), and paid duration of 2 hours for a total of £1.90.

This is clear evidence that the required parking tariff was paid using your own system on the day in question. In addition, I have now been able to log in to the Evology app, which clearly shows an active parking ticket for vehicle <VRN REMOVED> at St Benedicts Court on <Date Removed> for a paid duration of 2 hours, matching the receipt and payment records.

2. System and app failures

On the day, your payment/app system was extremely unreliable and difficult to access. It took a prolonged period to log in and complete payment despite repeated attempts, even though the user is experienced with technology and regularly uses such systems. Any minor discrepancy in ANPR timestamps and the paid-for period is therefore the result of your own system latency and user-unfriendly design, not any failure to pay or any attempt to evade the tariff.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a trader must perform services with reasonable care and skill, and terms that create an unfair imbalance to the consumer's detriment can be challenged. Your failure to provide a robust and accessible payment system cannot fairly give rise to a punitive charge when payment was in fact made.

3. Mandatory grace periods and payment delay caused by your system

The ANPR images show the vehicle in the car park for 2 hours 34 minutes, while the Evology receipt and app show that a 2-hour parking session was purchased at 10:52. Any delay between the ANPR "entry" time (10:35) and the recorded start of the paid session was caused by your own system, as the driver was actively attempting to register and pay using your app, which was slow and unresponsive.

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow reasonable "grace periods" both on arrival (to read signs, find a space and pay) and on departure (to leave the car park), and it makes clear that these periods must not give rise to a charge. The total alleged overstay is wholly accounted for by the time spent entering the site, parking, struggling with your app and exiting, and not by any failure to pay for parking. In these circumstances, issuing a £100 charge is excessive, punitive and contrary to the BPA Code.

4. No legitimate interest in pursuing a charge

Given that you received the correct tariff from the motorist, you have suffered no financial loss. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis only supports charges where they protect a legitimate interest and are not used as a disguised penalty. Pursuing a £100 charge where the parking fee was paid, due solely to system or timing quirks, is an unfair penalty and not commercially justified.

5. BPA Code of Practice and requirement to cancel

As a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme, ParkingEye must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, which requires operators to act fairly, consider mitigating circumstances and cancel charges where evidence shows a valid parking session was purchased. You hold ANPR timestamps and you can reconcile them with your payment records for <VRN REMOVED> and the attached proof of payment.

In light of the above, I require you to:

1. Cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately; and
2. Confirm in writing that my personal data will not be further processed or shared with any third party in relation to this PCN, save as required by law.

If you decide not to cancel, then treat this as a formal appeal and supply a rejection letter that includes a POPLA verification code so that I can escalate the matter to independent adjudication, as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Please note that any attempt to rely on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 will be robustly challenged if you have failed to meet the strict statutory requirements.

6. Wider evidence of systemic problems at this site

The issues I experienced are clearly not an isolated incident but part of a wider pattern of problems with the payment systems at St Benedicts Court car park. Multiple independent Google reviews for this specific car park report serious difficulties using the app and payment machines, with users stating that it took them a long time to pay, that they were unsure whether payment had gone through, or that they received ParkingEye charges despite having paid. In some of these reviews, motorists describe being told that their tariff was "insufficient" or that you initially could not find their payment, and in at least one case POPLA later required cancellation of the charge.

This body of public feedback demonstrates that there is a recurring issue with the way payments are recorded and reconciled at this location. It reinforces my position that any alleged underpayment or timing discrepancy arises from failures in your own system, not from any failure or dishonesty by the driver, and that it would be unreasonable and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice to pursue a punitive charge where you have in fact received payment.

Yours faithfully,

<Name Removed> (Registered Keeper)

Enclosures:

• Evology Pay receipt (<Date Removed>, £1.90, 2 hours paid)
• Apple Pay transaction confirmation
• Bank/Barclaycard statement screenshots
• Screenshots of public Google reviews regarding payment issues at St Benedicts Court car park

Coupon-mad

Yep, that letter is all over the forum and of course you just ignore it & wait.

Driver's name might be academic of course. You'll know whether your NTK is non-POFA or not from when you looked at my dedicated NTK pictures thread linked in the NEWBIES thread, and/or the picture of a 'golden ticket' in post 3 of it.