Parking eye (hotel)

jay2896

Hi all,

I've been here before but never with parking eye. just looking for some guidance.

I have appealed to the land owner with little success. I have complained to Parking eye which was obviously rejected. I sadly do not have the golden ticket.

Unfortunately I do not have any pics of the signage and the cost to drive to get them would be similar to paying the PCN and take the best part of a day.

This is my defence letter to POPLA, I would like to ask if you think it is strong enough? any pointer or tips are always welcomed. Thanks in advance

POPLA APPEAL

POPLA Ref: …….PCN Number: …….. Vehicle Registration: …… Date of Alleged Contravention: …….. Location: ……

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I appeal against this parking charge on the following grounds.

1. Keeper Liability Has Not Been Established Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

This charge was issued by post as a Notice to Keeper ("NTK") via ANPR. No windscreen ticket was issued. The operator does not know the identity of the driver and is pursuing the registered keeper.

To transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, ParkingEye must comply strictly with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). This is not optional — it is the only lawful mechanism by which a private parking operator can hold a keeper liable for a charge incurred by an unidentified driver.

Unlike a Notice of Intended Prosecution under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper who receives a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.

Paragraph 9(2) requires the NTK to contain all of the following:

(a) A statement that the notice is given under Schedule 4 of POFA; (b) The vehicle, the relevant land, and the period of parking to be specified; (c) The unpaid parking charges to be specified; (d) A statement that the creditor does not know the identity of the driver and is seeking payment from the keeper; (e) The amount of the parking charge; (f) A statement that the charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the day after the NTK is given; (g) A statement that if the charge is not paid, the keeper will be liable unless they provide the name and address of the driver; (h) An adequate description of any applicable appeals process.

I put the operator to strict proof that the NTK served on me complied in full with every one of these requirements. Any failure — even a single omission — is fatal to keeper liability.

Paragraph 9(4) requires the NTK to be given before the end of 14 days beginning with the day on which the vehicle was parked. "Given" means received, not posted. Ordinary postal service is deemed to take two working days from the date of posting. I invite the operator to prove that the NTK was both posted and received within the statutory time limit. If it was not, keeper liability cannot pass and this appeal must be allowed.

I have not identified myself as the driver. I have not admitted to being the driver. The operator does not know who was driving. If POFA keeper liability has not been properly established, there is no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for this charge.

This approach was upheld in POPLA appeal reference 6061796103 (September 2016, Assessor Carly Law), where ParkingEye's claim against a keeper was dismissed because the operator could not transfer liability under POFA and was unable to confirm that the appellant was in fact the driver.

2. Inadequate Signage — No Valid Contract Formed

A private parking charge is a contractual matter. For a binding contract to arise, the terms must be brought to the attention of the motorist clearly, prominently, and before they decide to remain on site. This was central to the Supreme Court's reasoning in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption placed significant emphasis on the fact that approximately 20 large signs with clear, large-font lettering were prominently displayed throughout the Chelmsford retail park. The Supreme Court was careful to stress that the decision related to that car park and those specific facts only.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (which came into force on 1 October 2024 and now applies to all BPA and IPC members including ParkingEye) requires that:

• Signage must be clear, prominent, legible, and unambiguous;
• Signage must be visible at the entrance and from parking spaces;
• The parking charge amount must be clearly displayed as one of the most prominent terms;
• Terms and conditions must be readable before the motorist decides to remain.

The alleged contravention occurred at ………….. — a dark winter evening. At that time of day in ………….in January, it would have been fully dark. I put the operator to strict proof that the signage was adequately illuminated and legible to a motorist arriving in darkness. Signs that may be readable in daylight do not necessarily meet the standard of being "clear, prominent and legible" after dark.

I further put the operator to strict proof as to: the size of the lettering for the most onerous term (the parking charge itself); the number and positioning of signs; and whether the signs were visible and readable from the point at which a driver must decide whether to remain. Generic photographs or promotional images taken at different times or in different lighting conditions should not be accepted as evidence of the signage conditions on the evening in question.

This is directly comparable to POPLA decision 5960956830 (2 June 2016, Assessor Rochelle Merritt), where signs of insufficient size in a busy car park were found inadequate because they did not afford motorists a fair chance to read and understand the terms before deciding to remain.

If the signage was inadequate to form the basis of a clear and binding contract, no contractual obligation arose and this appeal should be allowed.

3. Disproportionate Charge — Distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis

The ………… car park is a paid car park. The hotel's own website and third-party sources confirm that guests and visitors are required to pay a daily fee (reported as £3–£5 per day) for parking, with payment made at reception. This is fundamentally different from the free car park at issue in Beavis.

In ParkingEye v Cargius (25 November 2014, Wrexham County Court, DDJ Mahy), the court dismissed ParkingEye's claim and held that the Beavis reasoning did not apply to paid car parks. The judge found that because the car park already generated substantial revenue from parking fees, there was no commercial justification for imposing a penalty far in excess of the actual loss. The charge of £100 was held to be disproportionate where the actual loss was only approximately £2 in unpaid parking fees.

The same reasoning applies here. The operator's actual loss arising from a failure to pay for parking amounts to no more than £3–£5 — the cost of a single day's parking. The PCN demand of £100 bears no rational relationship to that loss. There is no commercial justification for the charge as the landowner already generates parking revenue. The charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty at common law.

The Single Code of Practice caps parking charges at £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days). However, a cap does not make a charge proportionate. The charge must still not be extravagant or unconscionable relative to the operator's legitimate interests, which in a paid car park are already satisfied by the daily parking fee.

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Under the BPA Code of Practice (and the Single Code of Practice), a parking operator must hold valid written authority from the landowner to manage the car park and to issue parking charges on the relevant date. This authority must cover the specific land, the right to issue charges, and the terms under which charges may be imposed.

I put the operator to strict proof that it held valid and sufficient written authority from the landowner (………. or the relevant freeholder) to issue parking charges at the ………….. Front Car Park on …………. The operator must produce documentation — not merely a witness statement — that clearly identifies the site, the authorised restrictions, the date the contract began, and whether the signatories were authorised to enter into the agreement on behalf of the landowner.

Heavily redacted contracts that obscure the scope of authority or the identity of the parties should not be accepted as sufficient evidence. Without valid landowner authority, the operator had no right to issue a parking charge and this appeal should be allowed.

5. Non-Compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice

ParkingEye operates ANPR surveillance cameras at this site. The use of ANPR constitutes surveillance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Part 2, Chapter 1. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner's Code of Practice sets out 12 guiding principles for the use of surveillance cameras, including requirements for proportionality, transparency, and clear signage informing individuals that surveillance is in operation and how their data will be processed.

I put the operator to strict proof that it complied with all relevant provisions of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and that adequate signage was displayed notifying motorists of the ANPR surveillance in accordance with the Code.

6. The Circumstances

The vehicle was on site because those travelling in it were attending a dance competition being held at the hotel on the date above. As a result, both the car park and the reception area were overcrowded and very busy, which further reduced the opportunity to locate, read, and understand the parking signage and payment instructions.

Summary

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully ask POPLA to allow this appeal:

1. The operator has not established keeper liability in compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. I am the registered keeper, not the identified driver, and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me;
2. The signage was inadequate to form a binding contract, particularly given the dark conditions at 19:58 on a January evening;
3. The charge is disproportionate and distinguishable from Beavis, following the reasoning in ParkingEye v Cargius, as this is a paid car park;
4. The operator has not demonstrated valid landowner authority;
5. The operator has not demonstrated compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

Supporting evidence attached:

• Photographs of signage at the site (if I can find any - not looking likely)
• Copy of the NTK
• Screenshots from the ………….. website confirming the car park is a paid facility

Yours faithfully,

jay2896

actually the more I’ve read on other people’s post it seems that it’s pointless appealing to POPLA with parking eye. Am I best to sit on it and wait for claim letter?

Gr1pr

Popla is not binding on you, so try it if you want

Car1980

Is the NtK non-compliant? What's missing? No point in saying it might not complaint, so prove it is.

With everything else, imagine what would happen if Popla agreed with you. Parking Eye would be put out of business, or they'd have to spend hundreds of thousands re-signing sites. Popla work for the parking co, not you.

Letters can be cheaply altered, so liability complaints can be successful.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81945108#Comment_81945108

My advice would be don't bother.

If you do try POPLA, remove point 1 & 3 as they don't make sense or have no legs.

jay2896

Hey all thanks for your advice, very helpful as always.

I think I will go with not bothering @Coupon-mad 's advice has never let me down before.

Do you think this one will be winnable at claim stage? I've only done this once before and last time I knew I had a very strong defense. Rather than 'The person driving my car (genuinely wasn't me) didn't realise she had to pay'

Do you know if everyone gets a claim letter or if they just select a certain percentage of people to pick on?

Coupon-mad

Not every unpaid case goes to a claim. But if you get one via DCB Legal then they'll discontinue.