Premier Park - Leaving Site

Z4MSupreme

Received a parking fine for leaving site

to this i appealed through their process (I should have waited till last minute like reccommended, but I made a mistake :/ ) with the following:

I am writing as the registered keeper of the above vehicle to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued on 27th March 2026. The charge is strongly disputed for the following reasons: 1. The driver was a legitimate patron of the site. The PCN alleges the driver breached the terms by "Parking and Leaving Site." This is factually incorrect. The driver and passengers were legitimate patrons of Valley Centertainment. Please find attached a copy of a bank statement showing a transaction at Burger King, located on the premises, at 17:41 on the day in question. 2. No strict proof of leaving the site has been provided. The burden of proof is on Premier Park to demonstrate that the driver definitively left the premises while the vehicle remained parked. Walking in the direction of a boundary does not constitute leaving the site. I require you to provide strict, unedited evidence that the driver explicitly left the Valley Centertainment property. 3. Timeline Discrepancies. Your notice is contradictory. It states an incident time of 21:50, yet the photographic evidence provided is timestamped 18:32 and 18:34. Combined with my evidence of patronage at 17:41, your timeline does not support a clear, continuous observation of the driver leaving the site. Therefore, I request that this charge be cancelled immediately.

To which I received the following response:

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason; Whilst we note your comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. Our operative observed the driver exiting site on foot. As such, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly. We have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.

Now I am drafting my POPLA appeal and this is what I have come up with so far:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle ………. I am appealing the parking charge issued by Premier Park Ltd on the following grounds:

1. The operator has provided no strict proof of the alleged breach ("Leaving Site"), and their timeline is factually impossible. The operator alleges the driver parked and left the site. In my initial appeal, I demanded strict, unedited evidence (such as continuous patrol logs or video) to substantiate this claim. In their rejection, the operator simply provided a boilerplate statement: "Our operative observed the driver exiting site on foot." They provided no evidence to support this bare assertion.

Furthermore, the operator's timeline of events is completely disjointed and contradicts the factual evidence.

17:41: The driver and passengers were legitimate patrons of Valley Centertainment immediately upon parking. I have attached a bank statement proving a transaction at Burger King, located on the premises, at 17:41. It is therefore impossible for the operative to have observed the driver leaving the site upon parking, as they were inside an on-site restaurant.

18:32 & 18:34: The operator's photographic evidence of the vehicle is timestamped here.

21:50: The PCN states this is the "Incident Time".

If the operative "observed the driver exiting the site," exactly when did this occur? If it occurred before 17:41, it is demonstrably false. If it occurred at 18:32, why was the incident logged at 21:50? If the operative merely observed the driver walking in the car park at 21:50, walking towards a vehicle does not constitute "leaving the site." The operator is relying on assumptions and a flawed, contradictory timeline rather than continuous observation. I require Premier Park to produce the full, contemporaneous, unredacted patrol logs for this specific incident to POPLA.

Further to this, even if the operative had observed a driver walking towards a boundary (which is denied), they failed in their legal duty. As established in the case of VCS v Ibbotson (Case No 1SE09849, 16.05.2012), District Judge McIlwaine ruled that a parking attendant has a legal duty under contract law to mitigate any loss. If an attendant genuinely watches a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of a boundary, they must attempt to stop or warn the driver of the terms, rather than waiting for them to leave solely to issue a punitive charge. Premier Park has demonstrated no evidence that their operative took any steps to mitigate this alleged breach. 

2. The driver was a legitimate patron; the primary purpose of the contract was fulfilled. The primary purpose of "no leaving site" clauses is to prevent non-customers from utilizing retail parking and impacting the retailers revenue. As evidenced by the attached Burger King receipt, the driver and passengers were genuine patrons of the Valley Centertainment complex. The operator is attempting to penalize a legitimate customer based on an unsubstantiated assumption by a patrol warden.

3. Inadequate Signage and Unclear Site Boundaries. For a contract to be formed, the terms must be clear and prominently displayed. I put Premier Park to strict proof that the signage at Valley Centertainment adequately defines the exact geographical boundaries of the site. As District Judge McIlwaine stated regarding "leaving site" clauses in VCS v Ibbotson: "You say he left the premises... where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?". A driver cannot be expected to know where an invisible boundary line is drawn. Walking to the edge of a retail park, or between venues within a large multiplex, does not equate to leaving the site. The operator must provide POPLA with a site map showing clear boundary markers and proof that signage at those specific boundaries explicitly warns drivers.

4. No Standing or Authority to Pursue Charges. I put Premier Park to strict proof that they have a valid, unredacted contract with the landowner that explicitly grants them the authority to issue parking charges and pursue them in their own name through the courts for this specific "leaving site" contravention. A witness statement is not sufficient; I require the operator to produce the actual contract.

5. Unreadable Evidence and Failure to Prove Contract Terms (BPA Code of Practice Breach) The operator relies on signage to form a contract with the motorist. Under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, signs must be readable and the terms clearly set out.

I refer POPLA to the operator's own photographic evidence of the signage timestamped 18:34:43. The primary terms and conditions board (the top sign) is completely illegible. It is impossible to read the core terms, the definition of "leaving the site," or the specific conditions of the contract the operator alleges was breached.

If the operator submits this low-resolution, illegible photograph as their primary evidence of the contract to POPLA, they have failed to prove that the terms were sufficiently clear to the driver, or what those terms even are. I put the operator to strict proof to provide POPLA with high-resolution, contemporaneous photographs of the exact terms and conditions on that primary top sign. Any reliance on undated "stock" photographs, digital mock-ups, or site maps will be rejected, as they do not constitute proof that the signage was present, legible, and unobscured to the driver on the specific date and time of the alleged event.

 The operator has issued a speculative charge based on a contradictory timeline and zero provided evidence, penalizing a proven legitimate customer. I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Premier Park to cancel the charge.

This is the image they uploaded as proof of signage as viewed on their website:

Any help with stuff I can add or if there is anything that I have missed, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!!

 

Coupon-mad

Yep that's very good.

Remove these words because logs can be mocked up later:

"continuous patrol logs or "

Z4MSupreme

have removed that! thank you, going to appeal to POPLA now, and will update with their response :)

Z4MSupreme

**UPDATE**

POPLA have now withdrawn their claim. Thank you @Coupon-mad for checking over my appeal!!

Coupon-mad

Nice result!