St. Anthony's Car Park, Penzance, Jubilee Pool, Pay on Exit, Parking Eye PCN, POPLA

SunUp

ParkingEye PCN2pg2.jpg

Pic Exit.png

Pic Tariff.png

If it hadn't been for another poster posting about this very same car park back in April:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6665675/misleading-parking-eye-signs-leading-to-a-pcn

I wouldn't have come across this brilliant resource. So here I am wanting to 'pay it forward'. There have been literally dozens scammed at this car park over time (see Google Maps reviews in recent date order for 'St. Anthony's Long Stay Car Park Penzance') . . . now it's time to hopefully help others on this issue and avoid paying any (frankly, fraudulent) 'parking charge' when the PCN arrives.

Rocked up to the St. Anthony's car park off Battery Road (also known as off Green Street), Penzance to use the Jubilee Pool across the road.

Entrance sign looks clear enough: Pay on Exit (pic attached). We said on entering these were great because all the other Pay on Exit car parks we'd used in the week showed the vehicle entry picture at the payment machine, the exact amount you had to pay, you pay the tariff and off you go . . .

We saw the pole-mounted ANPR camera up ahead, so parked up, then read the pole signage confirming "Pay for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before
exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will
be required" (see pic).

Once back at the payment machine to exit we descended into confusion: keying the "full, correct vehicle registration" required by the machine instead had the payment machine telling us to pay for 1 hour costing £2.50! We knew that was wrong because we'd used the car park for around 2 hours. The only way the machine would work was for us to guess when we'd arrived and key and pay for that tariff by pressing the + button to get that tariff. That meant the ANPR camera had nothing to do with actually making a payment at the machine. It was Pay on Exit, after all, and no condition said we had to know the exact time of entry to the car park.

I figured this was clearly a scam because the machine was Pay & DIsplay and doesn't appear to have been changed or updated to match the Pay on Exit terms and conditions: on paying for 2 hours the ticket issued said "Purchase Time" 2 hours later than the time we'd stood at the machine paying! Hence we decided to take the photos. It's then we researched this and found the earlier MSE forum link.

Good job we did. Lo and behold Parking Eye issued their £100 PCN about a week later (Notice to Keeper). Obviously we appealed and obviously it was rejected.

Meanwhile I've complained to the car park owner, Jubilee Pool Penzance Ltd (contact@jubileepool.co.uk) and got a woeful response about them knowing about the "confusion" and how "We are working with Parking Eye to facilitate a resolution as quickly as we can" . . . which wouldn't be needed at all if all was operating as it should at the car park.

I did ask Jubilee Pool to cancel the PCN by a certain date and, if they didn't, this would escalate. I've written to them with my schedule of time costs and a £100 inconvenience fee if they didn't cancel it, to be claimed via the Small Claims Court, on the basis that they've known about this issue since at least April 2026 (see earlier-mentioned thread on this forum). They didn't get it cancelled by the deadline, so here we are.

I'll post as separate posts to this thread my draft POPLA heads of appeal, including the apparent fact neither Jubilee Pool nor Parking Eye have bothered to apply for planning permission for the erection of a pole-mounted ANPR camera used solely to take entrance/exit pics for issuing PCNs! I'll also post the steps I've taken to put pressure on Jubilee Pool/ Parking Eye to clean up their act while they await putting in a proper Pay on Exit payment mechanism . . . the more that add to the volume of complaints, the more that is likely to save summer holiday families the panic of a £100 'parking charge'.

Hopefully the POPLA heads of appeal will be of use to anyone who unfortunately comes across this.

Appeal being filed this week so also any comments on the drafts are welcome!

ParkingEye PCN2.jpg

Pic Exit.jpg

Pic Tariff.jpg

Coupon-mad

Looks like ParkingEye are breaching the Code of Practice because you say you paid for 2 hours?

The car was only there 2 hours & 10 mins and the CoP requires a minimum 10 minutes grace period added at the end. So there was no overstay.

You'll win at POPLA on that basis if you did pay for 2 hours.

"I wouldn't have come across this brilliant resource. So here I am wanting to 'pay it forward'. There have been literally dozens scammed at this car park over time (see Google Maps reviews in recent date order for 'St. Anthony's Long Stay Car Park Penzance'"

Nice research and nice fightback stance.

Regardless of your POPLA appeal outcome, if you really want to pay it forward, please email your evidence of this scam operation (and point to the Google maps reviews) to the CMA and ask them to investigate why ParkingEye are:

• issuing PCNs within the minimum ten minute grace period, which is a breach of the industry CoP, and
• not using ANPR to support the rights and interests of the car park users, and

…ask the CMA to consider whether it is in good faith and in accordance with the concepts of 'fair and open dealing' to expect people to remember (hours later) the exact time they drove in, and to notice the tiny + button to override the price they are presented with at the payment machine.

SunUp

Spot on Coupon-mad! Paid for 2 hours (£3.50), which was a lucky guess considering the eventual time we found out we were actually parked there, but Parking Eye have made up a £4 tariff for 2 hours as well as ignored any consideration or grace periods. Several other BPA code of practice breaches too, it appears.

I'll definitely be emailing the CMA about what's occurred here: thank you for that.

POPLA appeal was filed today. I'll now follow on this thread with the various appeal headings made so anyone faced with the same position can copy/paste/amend as needed for their own appeals.

SunUp

I am not a lawyer! Hopefully the following wordings will help someone fighting the ridiculous PCNs issued at this car park: if it helps just one person succeed, then it's been worthwhile.

Please amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

****************

Appeal submitted online via online POPLA Appeal Portal

Parking Eye (Operator) Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Ref Number: [YOUR NUMBER HERE]

Car park site: St. Anthony’s, Penzance car park (Car Park)

Landowner: Jubilee Pool Penzance Ltd (Landowner)

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

I received on [YOUR DATE] the PCN dated [YOUR DATE]. My appeal to the Operator was submitted and acknowledged on [YOUR DATE] and rejected via an email of [YOUR DATE].

Reference is made in this document to the BPA Code, meaning ‘The private parking sector single Code of Practice, Version 1.1’ published 17 February 2025 with its Foreword updated 13 April 2026 (BPA Code). This is the latest version of the BPA Code. The Operator is subject to the BPA Code.

I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The signage of the Car Park is false, deliberately misleading and dishonest, as are the actions of the Operator,and entraps customers to use the Car Park in such a manner that ensures the issue of any PCN is unavoidable: this is a Level 4 non-conformance by the Operator under the BPA Code, Annex H, being the use of “predatory tactics to entrap motorists in to receiving a parking charge”.

2. The Operator has failed to take into account any consideration period or grace period in the issue of its PCN and so breaches the BPA Code.

3. The Operator has not shown any evidence that it has any landowner authority.

4. The Operator has claimed a false parking tariff which is not displayed on any signage in the Car Park.

5. The Operator has failed to show a valid “period of parking” as required for Notice to Keeper liability under paragraph 9(2)(a), Schedule 4,Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”)and also failed in that Notice to confirm the parking charges that remained unpaid as required under that Schedule 4.

6. The Operator has not shown that the terms and conditions and tariffs were clearly brought to the attention of the driver.

7. ANPR evidence is not sufficient without proof of accuracy, synchronisation and compliance.

8. Signage and ANPR camera use: BPA Code breaches and GDPR breaches.

9. Neither the Operator nor the Landowner has obtained planning permission from Cornwall Council for any pole-mounted ANPR camera nor any advertisingconsent for signage.

The Operator’s appeal rejection states: “We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal and can see that a payment to park was made on the date of the event. Unfortunately, the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the entire duration of the stay. The terms and conditions and tariffs are outlined on the signage which are on display throughout the car park.”

In rejecting my appeal the Operator failed to address any of my appeal points: these are now set out more fully in this appeal.

SunUp

Please amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

********************

1. The signage of the Car Park is false, deliberately misleading and dishonest, as are the actions of the Operator, and entraps customers to use the Car Park in such a manner that ensures the issue of any PCN is unavoidable: this is a Level 4 non-conformance by the Operator under the BPA Code, Annex H, being the use of “predatory tactics to entrap motorists in to receiving a parking charge”

This is because the Operator and Landowner have been dealing with at least one other instance of a PCN being issued since April 2026 for exactly the same issue of motorists seeking to comply with Pay on Exit directions, only to find that the technology is not there to allow it, with those parties instead relying on Pay & Display payment technology that has not been changed since at least 2023. That inevitably leads to the issue of PCNs.

BPA Code, Signs and surface markings, Commentary on Clause 3: “Signs . . . must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.”

The only immediately visible signage at the entrance to the Car Park states: “Pay on Exit This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms & conditions” (bold emphasis added)

See attached REFERENCE which is a contemporaneous photograph taken of the signage on [YOUR DATE, IF ANY] on seeking to leave the Car Park some time later after entrance.

The ANPR camera could also be seen ahead of the Car Park entrance. The reasonable belief based on that Pay on Exit sign and the ANPR camera visibility was that we could park up, return later on looking to exit the car park and use the payment machine to pay for our stay of the exact amount of tariff based on the time period captured by the ANPR camera, with the payment machine capturing our time of entry and exit to provide the accurate tariff amount required to be paid.

That was exactly the format used in all other Pay on Exit car parks used throughout the previous several days, including that managed by Parking Eye in Perranporth. No other PCNs have been received at all for use of those car parks with correct Pay on Exit technology.

On parking the vehicle in the Car Park, some minutes were taken to consider the further “terms & conditions” directed on the Pay on Exit entrance sign: the appropriate sign was found (a contemporaneous photograph taken of this signage on [YOUR DATE, IF ANY] on seeking to leave the Car Park some time later is attached as REFERENCE), and was headed ‘Parking Tariffs Apply’ and under the section ‘How to Pay’ could be read the following term and condition:

“Pay for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required”

It was extremely difficult to read the remaining terms and conditions displayed in very small print at the bottom of the sign, which follow on from the above stated condition (as can be seen in LAST REFERENCE ABOVE).

It is not a term or condition of the Car Park:

(1) that any other means must be used to make payment (for example, a requirement to use the JustPark app (in any event no mobile signal was available at the Car Park in order to use or download that app or access its website as we could not access the Landowner’s website to book a ticket online));

(2) that any parking ticket need be obtained from any payment machine and displayed in the car during the period of parking;

(3) that the exact date and time of entry to the car park is required in order to meet any of the Car Park’s terms and conditions, including the condition of making payment “for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park”.

No such terms and conditions were set out and no such terms and conditions were accepted.

In correspondence with the Landowner it has confirmed (see REFERENCE) that “The machine initially registers a fee is payable, with the onus is on [sic] the user to add extra hours if they need it, using the buttons on the machine.”

That apparent condition of use of the Car Park is nowhere communicated in the Car Park on any signage and nor is it a term or condition of using the Car Park.

The only way a user of the Car Park can know about that apparent “onus. . . on the user to add extra hours”as alleged by the Landowner is if further efforts have had to be made in challenging the PCN following the issue of it by the Operator.

That cannot be known at the time of entering the Car Park or on seeking to make payment for a stay, because it is not communicated anywhere.

If, in fact, a Pay and Display car park is intended then that is a term and condition of the Car Park that needs to be communicated at the point of entry to the Car Park and on the Car Park’s signage, not several days later discovered by accident and effort on the part of the Car Park user in pressing the Landowner to revoke the PCN. Otherwise, that is a secret payment requirement mechanism only known to the Operator and the Landowner.

On returning to the Car Park some time later a first attempt to make payment was made at the payment machine. The car’s vehicle registration number (VRN) was entered into the machine but the machine screen advised that a 1 hour tariff payment was required to be paid, of £2.50, with the clock time on the payment machine registering the time stood at it.

Clearly, the payment machine was faulty: we knew we had used the Car Park for more than 1 hour and so the tariff requested by the payment machine was completely wrong.

This created confusion. The transaction at the payment machine was cancelled 3 or 4 times as attempts were made to enter the “full, correct vehicle registration” as required by the signage referred above so the payment machine would allow us to “pay for the full duration of your stay . . . before exiting the car park”. The payment machine had a sticker on it noting the Pay on Exit requirement. Numerous times the Help/Info button on the payment machine was pressed but no additional information or help was given by the machine.

It then became clear that the machine was not acting as a Pay on Exit machine at all, and it was not allowing us to “pay for the full duration of your stay”: the machine was in fact acting instead as a Pay & Display machine: a Pay & Display mechanism of payment was not a term or condition anywhere displayed in the Car Park; furthermore,terms and conditions of a Pay & Display Car Park had not been communicated and were not accepted on entering the Car Park and so did not form part of any contract.

It was realised that the best that could be achieved was to add time to the Pay & Display machine to match the best estimate of the time incurred in using the Car Park. It was not a term or condition of the Car Park that a customer needed the exact time of entry in order to “pay for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park”, only that “your full, correct vehicle registration will be required”.

Realising that this appeared to be a deliberate entrapment exercise to collect £100 parking charges levied by the Operator, all we could do was pay our best estimate tariff of 2 hours costing £3,50, as the exact time of entry could not be known nor was the exact time of entry required to meet the stated terms and conditions for the Pay on
Exit Car Park.

On making such payment, the payment machine issued a paper ticket: (REFERENCE is attached which is the parking ticket issued by the parking machine evidencing the tariff paid.

REFERENCE states the “Purchase Time” of 15:48, despite the fact we were physically stood at the machine more than 2 hours earlier than that time, trying to pay for our stay from around several minutes beforehand. The Operator’s ANPR camera shows the vehicle leaving the premises at [YOUR TIME] (per the PCN: see REFERENCE): this nonsensical outcome proves the payment machine was using Pay & Display technology in direct contradiction to the Car Park’s Pay on Exit signage and the stated terms and conditions.

On that realisation, the enclosed contemporaneous photographs REFERENCE and REFERENCE were taken.

Therefore the Operator has acted in direct conflict with the BPA Code in having failed to establish signs that are “unambiguous to drivers”. The mechanism of use of the Car Park, set out in its entrance Pay on Exit sign and the further terms and conditions displayed on the signage, is in clear conflict with how the Car Park’s payment machine actually works in practice.

It was not therefore possible to meet the terms and conditions of the Pay on Exit Car Park as they were displayed.

Furthermore, the Operator, in failing to provide the technical mechanism to allow a customer to make payment “for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park . . .” using the customer’s “full, correct vehicle registration . . .” has breached its own terms and conditions and therefore any contract sought to be asserted by the Operator was frustrated and/or breached.

It is asserted that the Operator’s approach is deliberate and therefore the PCN issued amounts to an unjustified penalty use of the Car Park which is not saved by the case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis.

This is because the Operator (and the Landowner) has known about this payment machine technical malfunction since at least April 2026 where another customer suffered the exact same trial in trying to meet the terms and conditions of the Car Park (see attached REFERENCE: see weblink below including excerpt Landowner’s response).

This deliberate tactic is also ongoing: Google Maps reviews of the Car Park show numerous other customers reporting being similarly misled and invited to pay parking charges on dishonestly issued PCNs.

It is further asserted here that the Operator and Landowner have colluded in this activity.

This is because the originally installed Pay & Display machine in the Car Park appears not to have been changed since at least June 2023: the attached screenshot picture taken [YOUR DATE] from a Google Maps Street View of [June 2023: YOU MIGHT FIND ANOTHER DATE] clearly shows the “Welcome St Anthony’s Pay & Display Carpark” entrance signage (REFERENCE).

Zooming into the Car Park entrance signage of the attached screenshot picture taken [YOUR DATE] from Google Maps Street View of [November 2024: YOU MIGHT FIND ANOTHER DATE] clearly shows the entrance signage “Tariff payable at machine” (REFERENCE).

However, the attached REFERENCE is a screenshot picture taken [YOUR DATE] from Google Maps Street View of [April 2026: YOU MIGHT FIND ANOTHER DATE] which by that time now shows the current “Pay on Exit” entrance
signage but the Operator has clearly failed to change the payment machine mechanism from the pre-existing Pay on Display technology to Pay on Exit technology.

Hence why it appears impossible for a Car Park customer to actually meet the stated entrance signage requirement (“Pay on Exit”) or the stated terms and conditions of “Pay for the full duration of your stay at a payment machine before exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required”.

And hence why the Operator wrongly asserts in its appeal rejection of [YOUR DATE] that “ . . . the tariff purchased was insufficient . . .”: it is almost inevitable that it would be insufficient and the Operator is well aware of this as it is relying on a forward-looking time payment mechanism using a Pay on Display payment machine to entrap users of the Car Park who are relying on, as instructed by the terms and conditions, ‘pay after the event’ Pay on Exit technology.

The Operator appears to have failed to install the correct payment Pay on Exit machine technology to allow for payment on exit, and instead deliberately allows the continuation of pre-existing Pay & Display payment machine technology, despite changing the Car Park’s entrance sign to clearly state “Pay on Exit”: it has done so knowingly for several months.

The Operator must know that a PCN will always be issued as the ANPR camera is not linked to the payment machine (which the Landowner has confirmed: see later): only until a PCN is issued will a person become aware of any issue and then either panics and pays the ‘parking charge’ (perhaps no longer having any receipted evidence
of the payment tariff paid from several days/weeks ago, even if the amount paid exceeded that required) or has to contest the charge.

It is asserted that the Operator is not making any effort at all to seek to match up payments made at the payment machine with the ANPR camera images of vehicles: it simply can’t technically.

The Operator has therefore continued to allow a Level 4 non-conformance of the BPA Code Annex H Sanction Scheme in that it is “using predatory tactics to entrap motorists in to receiving a parking charge” and has done so since at least April 2026 and this is ongoing, based on the evidence of REFERENCE [MSE forum weblink] and the Google Maps reviews mentioned above.

That alone should be considered sufficient basis for withdrawing the PCN, the issue of which due to deliberate technical failure on the part of the Operator and Landowner is grossly unfair and therefore a penalty.

Regardless, the Operator’s assertion that the tariff purchased was insufficient is also wholly incorrect when considering the next following grounds of appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6665675/misleading-parking-eye-signs-leading-to-a-pcn

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

*******************

2. The Operator has failed to take into account any consideration period or grace period in the issue of its PCN and therefore breaches the BPA Code

BPA Code, Clause 5.1: “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B.”

BPA Code, Clause 5.2: “A grace period as set out at Annex B to this Code must be allowed by the parking operator in addition to the parking period . . .”

BPA Code, Annex B, Commentary on Annex B, B.1: “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.”

BPA Code, Annex B, Table B.1 Controlled Land:
[CUT AND PASTE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE TABLE HERE AND HIGHLIGHT THE "TYPE OF CONTROLLED LAND", "MINIMUM CONSIDERATION PERIOD" AND "GRACE PERIOD (MINS)" YOU ARE WANTING TO RELY ON]

The BPA Code Annex B Commentary on Annex B states “The purpose of this Annex is to set the mandatory minima for the consideration and grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2.”

The Operator cannot offer any evidence that the terms and conditions were accepted such that the consideration period ended earlier than the consideration period time prescribed in Annex B, of [5?] minutes. However it is understood that such consideration period applicable to the Car Park as agreed with the Landowner is 10 minutes but, again, the Operator cannot offer any evidence that such consideration period ended earlier than 10 minutes.

The Operator is put to strict proof that the Car Park’s minimum consideration period is less than 10 minutes.

Furthermore, the consideration period cannot have expired earlier than 5 minutes in any event because the Car Park is a Pay on Exit car park. The BPA Code Annex B Note 1 states: “It is important to stress that the consideration period is the amount of time a driver has to decide whether or not to park . . . Should the driver decide to do so within the consideration period, e.g., by purchasing a pay-and-display tariff ticket in less than 5 minutes, or if there is evidence that the driver has left the location e.g. by observation by an attendant, the consideration period is deemed to have expired, other than for pay-on-exit premises.” (bold emphasis added).

Regardless, and with every attempt having been made to satisfy the Car Park’s expressed terms and conditions, and such having been complied with (to the extent it was possible for the Pay on Exit Car Park despite the deliberate entrapment sought by the Operator instead using Pay & Display technology to extract payment), and taking into account the BPA Code Annex B Commentary on Annex B that the periods highlighted in Table B.1 above are “mandatory minima for the consideration and grace periods . . .” that the Operator must apply, it is clear that in this case the combination of either:

(1) a minimum consideration period of [5?] minutes plus a grace period of 10 minutes; or

(2) a minimum consideration period of [10?] minutes (as understood to be agreed for this Car Park) plus a grace period of 10 minutes

means that there has been no overstay in the Car Park and that the correct tariff for 2 hours was paid and not as the Operator asserts that “the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the entire duration of the stay”.

Therefore the PCN was issued by the Operator as a form of penalty for an alleged overstay of 10 minutes, completely ignoring consideration and grace periods in breach of the BPA Code: it had no contractual right to issue the PCN and it should be withdrawn.

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

******************

3. The Operator has not shown any evidence that it has any landowner authority

The Operator is put to strict proof of full contemporaneous landowner authority for the Car Park on the date in question and strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code.

As the Operator does not have any proprietary interest in the Car Park then I require the Operator to produce a fully non-redacted copy of its contract with the landowner (whether that be the Landowner or any other party).

That contract and any 'site agreement' or 'user manual' setting out full details including exemptions (such as any 'genuine customer' exemptions (relevant in this case as the Landowner is a public pool operator, which was used and was the reason for using the Car Park) or any Landowner 'right of veto' parking charge cancellation rights) is
vital evidence to define what the Operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the Landowner in fact has any right to cancel any parking charge.

It cannot be assumed, purely because an agent is subcontracted to merely put some signs up and issue ‘parking charge notices’, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in a small claims court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for the Landowner only).

Mere witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the rules of the site in question.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement or full compliance with the BPA Code Clause 14 (further referred below).

Nor would such a witness statement define vital information such as charging days and times, the use of Pay on Exit or Pay on Display technology, any exemption clauses, consideration and grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies, all of which is relevant to this particular PCN.

POPLA is asked to require such production to show exactly who contracted with the Operator and what rights were granted: I believe the Operator has no right to operate the Car Park as it does in terms of conflicting signage and payment mechanism and no right to assess PCNs on the basis of the tariff it alleges of £4 for 2 hours of
parking (see later grounds of complaint number 4.The Operator has claimed a false tariff which is not displayed on any signage in the Car Park).

The Operator’s PCN merely states the vehicle having “entered the St. Anthony’s, Penzance car park”, that it is private land and is managed by the Operator.

The Operator has thereforefailed to evidence any rights as landowner of the Car Park, who the landowner may be, or asserted that there is any landowner, and therefore the legal basis on which the Operator says it is entitled to recover the charge alleged is completely unfounded.

Clause 14 of the BPA Code sets out the mandatory requirements needed in entering into a relationship with any landowner and I put the Operator to strict proof of full compliance with that clause of the Code and in
particular that it has written confirmation from the Landowner setting out:

- the landowner’s identity;

- a boundary map of the land intended to be managed by the Operator;

- the byelaws that may apply to such land related to the management of parking;

- the permission granted to the Operator by the landowner and the duration of that permission;

- the parking terms and conditions to be applied by the Operator including parking tariffs, specific permissions and exemptions and the use of any payment machine technology;

- the means by which parking charges will be issued;

- responsibility for obtaining relevant consents such as planning consents from the local authority;

- the Operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

********************

4.The Operator has claimed a false parking tariff which is not displayed on any signage in the Car Park

The Operator has failed to give any grounds for why “the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the entire duration of the stay”.

The tariff paid was £3.50 for a best estimate (considering the Pay on Exit and Pay & Display conflict) of 2 hours of parking, per the tariff signage and the payment machine display in the Car Park.

[CROSS REFER CAR PARK SIGNAGE] enclosed proves the signage within the Car Park showing that is the correct tariff for 2 hours of parking.

However, it was only until wishing to file an appeal in the first instance with the Operator, and then accessing its appeal portal that the Operator was then found to be asserting a £4 tariff charge for 2 hours of parking (below
is a screenshot excerpt of the appeal portal also enclosed in full as REFERENCE):

[Only when you log on to the Parking Eye appeal portal on receiving a PCN will you know if they're claiming a tariff that doesn't exist: if that applies, screenshot it and put it here]

No such tariff appears anywhere in the Car Park.

The Operator is asserting a 2 hour tariff of £4 that does not exist. If that is the basis for the Operator asserting that “the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the entire duration of the stay” then the PCN should be withdrawn.

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

*********************

5. The Operator has failed to show a valid “period of parking” as required for Notice to Keeper liability under paragraph 9(2)(a), Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) and also failed in that Notice to confirm the parking charges that remained unpaid as required under that Schedule 4

Paragraph 9(2)(a) PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant “period of parking”.

Operators using ANPR commonly only record entry and exit timestamps, as evidenced in this case: see attached copy PCN REFERENCE.

Those timestamps are not the same as a proven “period of parking”.

The timestamps in this case merely show the times of the vehicle passing the ANPR camera at the entrance/exit point of the car park (unlawfully erected: see appeal heading 9 Neither the Operator nor the Landowner has obtained planning permission from Cornwall Council for any pole-mounted ANPR cameranor any advertising consent for signage).

They do not evidence when the vehicle was parked and whether the vehicle was manoeuvring, waiting for a space, or queuing, or reading the car park signage.

The PCN Notice to Keeper is relying on ANPR entry and exit times (themselves unlawfully obtained due to a lack of any planning permission having been sought from Cornwall Council for the erection of a pole-mounted ANPR camera: see appeal heading 9 below) which is not the same as specifying a “period of parking” which is a
strict requirement of a Notice to Keeper PCN as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) PoFA.

The burden rests on the Operator to prove that the “period of parking” relied on is in fact a “period of parking”
and not inclusive of the Car Park’s consideration time or grace period.

This is especially important where the Operator is relying on seeking to impose keeper liability under PoFA as the PoFA requires a “period of parking” to be shown: the Operator has merely evidenced two timestamped images of the vehicle in motion in entering and exiting the car park and so has failed to show a valid “period of parking” as required for keeper liability.

In addition, the “parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period” have not been set out by the
Operator in the Notice to Keeper as required by paragraph 9(2)(c) PoFA, nor does the Operator’s Notice to Keeper “specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid” as required by paragraph 9(2)(d) PoFA: it merely states “Parking Charge Amount: £100.00” without any additional specific clarification as to the amount “due from the driver as at the end of that period” or “the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid”.

A Notice to Keeper is only valid and can only be relied on as such if all of the requirements set out in paragraph 9 are met (paragraph 9(1), Schedule 4, PoFA) and that is a required condition under paragraph 6(1)(b), Schedule 4, PoFA.

The Operator’s Notice to Keeper is therefore invalid: it has, as explained above, failed to meet all of the legal requirements stated in paragraph 9, Schedule 4 PoFA.

Having so failed, the condition under paragraph 6(1)(b), Schedule 4, PoFA has not been met and the PCN must be cancelled.

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

*********************

6. The Operator has not shown that the terms and conditions and tariffs were clearly brought to the attention of the driver

The Operator asserts in its PCN (Item I) that there is “signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and
throughout the car park . . .”. That is not evidence but merely an assertion by the Operator.

The Operator has also failed to clarify at any point what signs throughout the site it believes are actually clear: is it the Pay on Exit signs? Or is it the Pay on Display payment machine mechanism (which makes no mention of the requirement actually to pay and display and in fact states the requirement to pay on exit)?

The Operator is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including clear contemporaneous photographs and a site map showing the location of each sign, the wording on each sign, and the route by which a driver would encounter and be able to read them before any contract could be formed, and evidence of its Pay on Exit mechanism on making payment at the Car Park’s payment machine.

If the Operator wishes to rely on signage to establish contractual liability then POPLA is invited to require strict proof that the signage was sufficiently prominent, legible and positioned, including whether such signage is Pay on Exit or Pay on Display, so that the driver was given a fair opportunity to read and understand the terms for either (1) Pay on Exit or (2) Pay on Display, before any contract could be formed.

The only tariff board in the Car Park exhibits a 2 hour tariff costing £3.50.

However, the Operator, on logging on to its Complaint Portal instead has asserted a 2 hour tariff costing £4.

No such £4 tariff exists on any signage within the Car Park and the Operator is put to strict proof that such a tariff applies as it asserts and that therefore insufficient tariff was paid as it claims (see also appealground 4. The Operator has claimed a false tariff which is not displayed on any signage in the Car Park above covering this point as a separate ground of appeal).

SunUp

Amend the wordings to suit your own POPLA appeal (the Parking Eye appeal is a pointless hurdle to get through to access the POPLA appeal process).

*********************

7. ANPR evidence is not sufficient without proof of accuracy, synchronisation and compliance

If the Operator is relying on ANPR cameras, it is put to strict proof that the system was working correctly on the material date of [DATE], that the ANPR cameras were properly synchronised, that the images relate to the same single visit, that the timestamps are accurate, and that the ANPR cameras have been lawfully installed as a compliance requirement under Cornwall Council’s planning application and granting process.

ANPR images of a vehicle entering and leaving a site, even if they have been lawfully installed, do not in and of themselves establish the contractual terms accepted, the point at which there was any contract formation (if any), or the actual “period of parking” required by the BPA Code and nor do they prove that the driver saw, read and accepted any contractual terms.