ParkingEye for out of hours parking

NotMyName51

Hey all. This is ridiculous, 20 years of driving with no parking tickets until suddenly getting one after the next now.

I have already submitted the blue letter appeal to ParkingEye (unchanged) and emailed this complaint to the retailer:

"I am writing to ask that you instruct your parking contractor, ParkingEye, to cancel a recently issued parking charge relating to your site in Winsford, Nat Lane.

The notice

alleges a stay of just 13 minutes. The images provided are taken in near-total darkness, and any signage would not have been legible to a driver on arrival. It is entirely reasonable that a driver would need time to enter, attempt to locate and read signage, and then leave.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires a reasonable consideration period. Issuing a charge in these circumstances appears unnecessarily aggressive and, frankly, predatory.

As a customer-facing business, I would hope you would not wish to be associated with this type of enforcement. I would therefore appreciate it if you could contact ParkingEye and request that this charge be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you very much in advance."

Screenshot 2026-04-15 at 18.36.10.png

I am only posting to make sure that I am focusing on the right points. The way I see it, those main points are:

• No mention of the alleged contravention (no keeper liability)
• evidence pictures show poor lighting
• Insufficient consideration time, BPA breach. Under the lighting conditions, 13 minutes could be considered reasonable to locate signage, read, understand and agree to a contract
• No evidence of landowner authority
• No evidence of loss or damage

Thanks so much.

Gr1pr

The alleged breach will be in the top paragraph on the back !

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81964491#Comment_81964491

What the letter states at the back is:

"The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and that the car park is managed by Parkingeye Ltd. In addition the signage states that, as a maximum stay car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the vehicle remains within the car par for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time. The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound."

This does not allow time for consideration of the terms, as required by BPA?

Coupon-mad

It is an unfair term to allow a zero consideration period. Just ignore this.

NotMyName51

Parkingeye informed me that my appeal has been unsuccessful. Of course. POPLA appeal here I come. This is my first draft:

POPLA Verification Code: REDACTED

PCN Reference: REDACTED

Vehicle Registration: REDACTED

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I appeal against a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd. I deny liability for this charge.

The operator has not identified the driver, and I have not admitted to being the driver. This appeal is made strictly in my capacity as keeper. No assumptions should be drawn regarding driver identity.

1. No Keeper Liability Established under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability from driver to registered keeper.

In particular, the NTK relies solely on ANPR “entry” and “exit” timestamps rather than evidence of a defined “period of parking”. Movement through a site is not equivalent to parking time and does not satisfy the statutory requirements.

As such, ParkingEye Ltd has failed to establish keeper liability.

Evidence:

• Appendix A – Notice to Keeper issued by ParkingEye Ltd

2. No Contract Formed – Failure to Prove Adequate Signage and Uncertain Contractual Terms

The operator has failed to demonstrate that a clear and enforceable contract was formed at the material time.

The only evidence provided consists of ANPR images showing the vehicle in near-total darkness, in which no signage is visible or legible. These images demonstrate only entry and exit times, not any contractual engagement.

The operator has provided no contemporaneous evidence demonstrating:

• that signage was visible or legible at the material time
• that the driver was capable of reading and understanding terms before any alleged contract was formed
• that the conditions were suitable for contractual acceptance

In addition, the signage and Notice to Keeper refer to a “0 hours 0 minutes maximum stay”. This is not a meaningful or capable contractual term and fails to define any actual permitted parking period. It is therefore incompatible with the BPA Code of Practice requirement that drivers must be afforded a reasonable consideration period and grace period.

A term purporting to set a maximum stay of zero minutes is inherently ambiguous and incapable of forming a valid contractual offer. It does not provide a genuine opportunity for a driver to read, consider, and accept the terms prior to liability allegedly arising.

Accordingly, no contract can be said to have been formed on the terms asserted by the operator.

Evidence:

• Appendix B – ParkingEye Ltd ANPR images (darkness, no visible signage)

3. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice – Consideration and Grace Periods

The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to allow:

• a reasonable consideration period upon entry to read signage and decide whether to stay
• a grace period at the end of parking before enforcement action is taken

The alleged contravention is based on an ANPR-recorded duration of approximately 13 minutes at 23:32, during hours of darkness.

ParkingEye has provided no evidence of:

• any consideration period applied upon entry
• any grace period applied upon exit
• any distinction between time on site and actual parking time

In the absence of such evidence, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. A contractual breach cannot be established where mandatory procedural safeguards have not been evidenced.

4. No Legitimate Commercial Justification – Distinction from ParkingEye v Beavis

The operator may seek to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis; however, that case was expressly based on a legitimate commercial interest in managing parking turnover for active retail use during operating hours.

The alleged contravention occurred at approximately 23:32, outside the retailer’s operating hours.

At this time:

• there was no active retail operation
• no customer turnover requirement existed
• no commercial justification for enforcement of parking duration is demonstrated

Accordingly, the legitimate interest underpinning Beavis is absent, and the charge is disproportionate and unenforceable in these circumstances.

Evidence:

• Appendix C – Retailer opening hours confirming site closure at material time

5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

ParkingEye is put to strict proof that it holds a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner authorising it to:

• issue and enforce parking charges
• pursue keeper liability
• take legal action in its own name

No such evidence has been provided. A generic assertion or witness statement is insufficient to discharge this burden.

6. Conclusion

ParkingEye has failed to establish:

• keeper liability under PoFA 2012
• that a valid contract was formed
• compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (consideration and grace periods)
• that Beavis is applicable in the circumstances
• that it holds sufficient landowner authority

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge cancelled.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Notice to Keeper issued by ParkingEye Ltd

Appendix B – ANPR entry and exit images (showing darkness and absence of visible signage)

Appendix C – Retailer opening hours confirming closure at material time

Coupon-mad

POPLA is not what we'd recommend. It is not independent and I can't see a winning point.

Point 1 is likely wrong unless you are telling us the first NTK doesn't have the POFA 2012 words on the back? Highly rare from ParkingEye.

Try POPLA if you want … but don't expect to win, unless (possibly) you:

• state that you reasonably believe from local news articles and social media posts that this site landowner requires a 15 minute consideration period and put the operator to strict proof to disprove that (the full landowner agreement);
• state that 13 minutes to arrive, park, find a sign, read terms and go back to the car & leave was reasonable in the circumstances. This brief entry/exit was in hours of darkness when the terms inside cannot be as easily found and read in the dark as would be the case in daylight
• point out if the entrance sign is misleading and says something different as the headline offer, e.g. "2 hours free" etc. and as such drivers are enticed in and trapped even if they leave quickly;
• show photos of the site in pitch black (NOT at dusk, actual darkness and a pic of the t&cs with NO FLASH
• Include evidence (if you have it) that the car was then parked elsewhere, proving no contract was accepted here and no amenity was gained by the entry/exit.

Even then it's likely you'll lose, so if you were my relative I would say IGNORE THEM. However nothing to lose by trying POPLA then ignoring them if you lose.

Have you exhausted plan A?

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81982785#Comment_81982785

Yes. I contacted the retailer and they told me to take it up with the parking company. So I appealed to them but lost that appeal.

Ignoring them, I assume they will start their several year long assault and threatening legal action. Do I just ignore them until it gets to that point in the hope they'll just go away?

Gr1pr

Come back to this thread if you receive an LBC or a Money Claim

Coupon-mad

"Do I just ignore them until it gets to that point in the hope they'll just go away? 

No, you want a claim form to arrive. Ideally from DCB Legal who always discontinue defended claims and nobody pays a penny.

NotMyName51

Thank you all so much. You guys are incredible. This forum is amazing! I cannot overstate my appreciation for how incredibly generous you are with your expertise and time! I really wish I'd come on here when I got my very first parking ticket 4 years ago. I can imagine that if you know what you are doing, getting the same questions over and over gain must be frustrating. But the difference you are making to people like me, who are at home, stressed and worried, is significant!

I will sit tight and post again if things progress on this PCN.

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983120#Comment_81983120

I have now received a letter from DCB Legal: Notice of Debt Recovery - Unpaid parking charge £170, sign by the head of collections, Rachel Hulme.