Parking charge notice from Parkingeye

Freesoul01

Hi, respected experts.

This Parking Charge Notice was received in Bournemouth this week. I would be grateful if anyone with experience could look at it and advise whether there are reasonable grounds to challenge it or whether it would be better to pay the reduced amount. The driver was accompanied with the new Tennant who were just arrived and don't know about the parking term and condition.

I have attached photographs of the notice, with the personal information removed. Please let me know if you need any further details, such as photographs of the signs, the location, timings, or correspondence.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Coupon-mad

"challenge it or whether it would be better to pay the reduced amount."

Well you'll never have to pay.

But what were you doing (were you helping them unload stuff?) and what do you mean by saying that the passenger was a tenant there?

The site appears to be a hotel.

Freesoul01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82075783#Comment_82075783

Yes the driver picked the passenger from the hotel to a new property, (he stopped at two locations) he thought it was issued at the property not the hotel.

Coupon-mad

But you can see it's at the hotel, so why hasn't the guest complained to them to get it cancelled? That's PLAN A every time.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6676934/parking-charge-notice-from-parkingeye

Can you post a copy of the rear of the notice too please?

Freesoul01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82076321#Comment_82076321

Here you go!

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82076672#Comment_82076672

Thanks.

Have you tried plan A like coupon suggested?

If that doesn't work, I'd be tempted to appeal to PARKINGEYE using the TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' from the pinned Newbies thread.

When that inevitably gets rejected, I'd appeal to POPLA, along the following lines:

Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is a relevant issue in this case because the operator has issued the PCN to me on the basis that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

1] There is no allegation within the PCN that I was driving the vehicle in question.

2] The form and substance of the Notice is clearly intended to allow the operator to avail themselves of the of the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the Act.

3] The Operator concedes that they do not know the driver's name or current postal address.

4] This appeal must therefore be decided with reference to the basis on which the PCN has - in fact - been issued. That basis is that I am the keeper, not the driver.

Whether the operator may, could, or might at some future point pursue me on the basis that I am alleged to be the driver is irrelevant to this appeal.

A creditor only has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 where the criteria in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 are met.

Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met.

Paragraph 6(1)(b) requires that a Notice to Keeper is given accordance with paragraph 9.

Paragraph 9(2)(c) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must: describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose.

The PCN does not do so. Instead, it merely gives a laundry list of potential reasons, ranging from "not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket", to "remaining at the car park for longer than permitted" to "not entering your registration details via the terminal".

As the PCN does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(c), this is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Even if it not accepted that there was a failure to comply with POFA, this lack of clarity makes it impossible to know whether the PCN has been properly and fairly issued, and for that reason this appeal should be allowed.

Additionally, on 16th July 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority published an open letter to private parking operators [Appendix 1]. Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence they send to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice - and the Appeals Charter at Annex F - in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay or appeal a PCN. Substantive correspondence specifically includes the Notice to Keeper, payment reminder letters and letters sent to consumers during an internal appeal.

The Notice to Keeper fails to direct the consumer to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, or to Annex F thereof. The CMA consider that this is a failure to provide material information as required by section 227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the ‘DMCC Act’), which deprives the consumer of the ability to make an informed decision on whether to pay or appeal. For this reason, this appeal should be allowed.

The same criticism - a failure to provide material information - can also be made of the failure to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose. This again deprives the consumer of the ability to make an informed decision on whether to pay or appeal. For this reason, this appeal should be allowed.

With the POPLA appeal, save a copy of  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a5784276d6d5c7e2845ca02/open_letter.pdf  as Appendix 1 and upload it along with the appeal.

Freesoul01

Can anyone correct me if I am wrong? and also advise whether to send the appeal today or wait until Monday? I tried the plan A, but wasn't successful.

If the PCN was issued on Saturday 11 July 2026, it would ordinarily be treated as delivered on the second working day after posting:

Monday 13 July: first working day

Tuesday 14 July: second working day/deemed delivery

Wednesday 15 July: Day 1

Tuesday 11 August 2026: Day 28 for the appeal to PE.

Freesoul01

Can anyone check with me this appeal letter to send to PE, please:

—

Appeal Letter template

I am the registered keeper and formally dispute this Parking Charge Notice. I deny liability and will not identify the driver. No presumption may be made that the keeper was driving.

The ANPR images show entry at 10:16 and exit at 10:40—a total site presence of 24 minutes. They do not prove the duration of actual parking or when any alleged contract was accepted.

The vehicle was present solely for a genuine hotel visit. The passenger entered to enquire about accommodation but found reception unattended and then had to wait behind customers checking in and out. Staff did not mention any requirement to register the vehicle or pay for this brief visit. Once assisted, the passenger returned and the vehicle left promptly.

The Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the alleged contravention. Instead, it appears to provide several possible reasons. Paragraph 9(2)(c) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires the notice to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose. A generic list does not satisfy this requirement or enable the keeper to understand the case being made.

If ParkingEye seeks keeper liability, it must demonstrate strict compliance with every applicable Schedule 4 requirement. Keeper liability is conditional and does not arise merely because ParkingEye obtained my details from the DVLA.

The CMA’s Open Letter of 16 July 2026 confirms that a consideration period is a minimum, not a hard cut-off, and that operators must consider the individual circumstances. These include the unattended reception, customer queue, genuine purpose of the visit and failure of hotel staff to communicate the parking requirements. Rigidly applying 0 minutes would be inconsistent with consumer law and the CMA’s expectations of fairness and professional diligence.

The Notice also appears not to direct the keeper to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice or its Appeals Charter, contrary to paragraph 28 of the CMA Open Letter.

I require ParkingEye to cancel the PCN. If it is not cancelled, please provide:

• The precise contravention alleged;
• Close-up contemporaneous photographs and a site plan of the signs;
• Any relevant payment records with registrations partially redacted;
• The site-specific consideration and grace periods authorised by the landholder;
• Evidence of ParkingEye’s landholder authority; and
• An explanation of how Schedule 4 keeper liability has been established.

Please place recovery action on hold while this appeal is considered. If the appeal is not accepted, provide a fully reasoned decision and a valid POPLA verification code.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

No just use the template appeal but add that you were a patron and if you made a booking that day, attach proof.

But also escalate a complaint to the manager BEFORE TRYING POPLA. Their staff failed to draw your attention to any obligation to register your VRM so the hotel caused this, and can easily cancel it.

Freesoul01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82096729#Comment_82096729

Thank you. He did contact the hotel manager and ask them to intervene, but they refused, saying that ParkingEye has full control of the car park and that the hotel cannot cancel the charge. Unfortunately, no booking was made that day, as he was only there to enquire about accommodation.