Help! High Point Village Hayes & Harlington PCN from PCM

eternalsunshinee

Hi everyone,

I've read all the pinned threads so hopefully am doing this correctly.

I received a PCN from PCM for the driver of the car "parking in a restricted area." Images of the PCN and earliest and latest photos they gave as evidence are below. They only showed that the driver was there for eight seconds. The photos appear to be taken by a person, so I doubt they have CCTV to show if the car was there any longer.

The grounds of appeal I'm putting are that they broke consumer and contract law by not giving a minimum of a one minute consideration period (as stated by IPC/BPA Code of Conduct for short stay car parks - they had a max 20 min parking limit - as they are an IPC member). In the eight seconds it's impossible to consider the terms and conditions, especially because the signage was not legible. The signage was placed at height and included tiny font impossible for any driver to read whilst driving; they would have to stop/park and get out the car. This means drivers cannot consider the consequences of entering the contract or work out if it is in their best interests to park there as a consuer.

I feel that I have a strong argument but of course, any advice would be appreciated. Is there any way to work in non-PoFA compliance? Below is my draft appeal. Any thoughts welcome and let me know if there's further info I could give in this thread. Thank you in advance.

To whom it may concern,

I am appealing your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) PC50413772 issued by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (hereafter referred to as PCM). As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am disputing the PCN for the reasons below and will not state who the driver was, nor am I obligated to. I will be making a complaint about PCM’s conduct to the landowner, Ballymoore HQ. I will not hesitate to escalate this to my local Member of Parliament if I receive an unsatisfactory response refusing to cancel the PCN.

As you will be aware, PCM is a member of the trade association International Parking Committee (IPC). PCM should be complying with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (hereafter referred to as Industry Code), jointly published by IPC and the British Parking Association. The IPC requires their members to follow this Industry Code, which shows members how to follow the law. PCM has not followed the code in this case, and ultimately broken consumer and contract law. The PCN says the driver was “parking in a restricted area”, despite the evidence showing the car being present for only eight seconds. By issuing a PCN for “parking” of a duration of eight seconds, PCM is acting contrary to clause five of the Industry Code (“Duration of parking period”, page 14). Clause 5.1 states “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” (page 35). Annex B states that short stay parking locations offering parking for 30 minutes or less, such as High Point VIllage, must have a consideration period of a minimum of one minute before the contract between the driver and Operator begins. PCM has evidenced that the driver was present for just eight seconds and therefore, by issuing a PCN, PCM has unfairly initiated the contract by not giving the driver adequate opportunity to consider the terms and conditions and consequences of parking on private land, which is against IPC’s Industry Code. 

Furthermore, commentary on Clause five states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of time needed varies according to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open to the public includes the time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should the driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration period before the contract between the driver and the parking operator is made.” This makes PCM’s issuing of this PCN after not providing a consideration period before making the contract between the driver and PCM against contract law. An open letter to private parking operators from the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) (written by Hayley Fletcher, Senior Director - Consumer) dated 16th July 2026 states the Industry Code’s clause 5 and Annex B reflect “the need to protect consumers' legitimate interests and expectations by ensuring they have a reasonable opportunity to make an informed choice before becoming bound by the terms.” Despite all of this, no consideration period was given by PCM, meaning PCM is additionally breaking consumer law. 

Clause 5.1b states Operators must factor in “the time required for a driver to identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not invited.” Annex B states that “it will be important to ensure that clear signage is in place, which can quickly be read, possibly while vehicles are being driven into the area.” Signage displaying terms and conditions was not legible from a distance that allows drivers to read the signage completely within one minute and availability of your signage does not equate to eligibility. This signage had small font and was placed at a height not enabling the driver to read the terms and conditions from a distance without stopping, parking, or getting out of the car. Yet entry to the land states stopping is prohibited, making it even more difficult to read the terms and conditions and contemplate the consequences of parking there without stopping or parking. Evidence of the sign not being legible in its entirety from a distance or whilst driving is attached. The CMA also stated drivers should have enough time to read and understand the terms of the agreement they are entering into by parking in a private car park before the agreement is considered enforceable. 

Lastly, issuing a PCN without providing a consideration period factoring in the above appendix, clauses, commentary, and contract law is predatory. This means PCM has not only broken IPC rules and the law by not giving a consideration period, but has also committed Level 4 non-conformance as stated under Annex H (page 53) in the Industry Code. By issuing this PCN, PCM is admitting to breaking the IPC Industry Code and both contract law and consumer law. As a result, this PCN has no merit and it must be cancelled if PCM wants to avoid continuing to break the law.

I await your response.

eternalsunshinee

This is the signage

Gr1pr

An extremely notorious trap site

I doubt that the consideration period is one minute

Are you 100% certain that PCM issued a Penalty Notice. ?

Are you 100% certain that its Committee. ?

Coupon-mad

It's not a penalty or fine, it's just an invoice.

"They only showed that the driver was there for eight seconds. The photos appear to be taken by a person,"

Oooh, please show both sides of that PCN. Redact your data but show ALL times & dates.

Clearly it was not possible to have read any terms in 8 seconds flat and if they had an employee there on foot (which we know they do, taking covert snaps on a phone to upload to make money per postal PCN), if PCM were operating fairly for consumers, he or she should be in uniform and tasked with two things:

• moving traffic on, if people inadvertently stop in the wrong place, and signposting them to where passengers can be dropped off;
• issuing timely 'consumer notices' on site by affixing PCNs to windscreens but only after an observation/consideration period.

Instead, just as they did when they were thug wheelclampers, PCM have unreadable signs and no entrance signage (and no GDPR privacy notice or warning about the hand-held surveillance device and how the images will be used), and EXACTLY LIKE WHEELCLAMPING USED TO BE, they have a person hiding in ordinary clothes (sometimes hiding round corners or in a car) and penalising drivers in seconds.

And they have a self-serving Code of Practice written by them and their ilk, that touts the preposterous idea that a consideration period 'ends early' (within seconds) if a passenger gets out of the vehicle! Complete rubbish. Never mind what a passenger does.

The DRIVER has to have been given a fair opportunity to read prominent signs and terms before they are bound! This is basic contract law and the consideration period doesn't 'end early' just because the Joke 'Joint Code' says it can.

Apart from double red lined no-stopping zones at Airports (which still need a minute's allowance to protect drivers from scam charges), no consideration period should be less than 5 minutes minimum.

NB:

(Not at this site but most consideration periods should be 10-15 minutes MINIMUM, where the driver has obligations on arrival that take time, such as downloading an app to pay, or fetching a paper permit from residential or business premises).

Pleeeeeease show both sides of the PCN

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092364#Comment_82092364

Oh yes thank you for catching the wording errors, the IPC Code of Conduct says for short stay it's one minute (this car park is 20 min stay)

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092419#Comment_82092419

Thank you for picking up on the surveillance/GDPR issues; I'll add that in to my draft and reshare it. I'll be able to share the other side of the PCN later in the evening, but I have this from the online pay my pcn site for now.

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092419#Comment_82092419

Also where does it say the consideration period ends early if a passenger gets out of the vehicle

eternalsunshinee

I've added into my appeal the below. I also added in a sentence mentioning the passenger had to get out of the car to walk up to the signage and read it.

The Keeper at Date of Event Contract with the DVLA requires private parking companies to comply with its accredited trade association code of practice. Clause A7.1 of the Agreement between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Customer states “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice.” PCM is a member of the IPC and you have clearly failed to abide by their Code of Practice by breaching the above clauses and laws. As a result, you have obtained my data from the DVLA fraudulently by denying the driver sufficient time to read the signage depicting the terms and conditions.

Moreover, PCM did not make the use of camera surveillance by patrols overtly clear. There was no signage to indicate that camera surveillance was in use. It should be noted that this is contrary to article 13 of GDPR legislation no privacy information was provided to myself or the passenger, the data subjects, at the time of collection. Note 2 under Clause 3.1.2 states Operators “In meeting obligations to display signs informing drivers of the use of camera surveillance equipment and associated information about their data privacy rights under the GDPR, operators should avoid overcomplicating signs with text that crowds out space for display of the key terms and conditions for staying” but there was no signage at all. Your physical patrol was covert and was not wearing uniform.

eternalsunshinee

I'm back for the sixth time.... Here's the back of the PCN

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092419#Comment_82092419

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092599#Comment_82092599

What the joke Code says and what the CMA (the consumer protection law Regulator) says are two different things.

Guess which one is wrong/an unfair term?!

"Also where does it say the consideration period ends early if a passenger gets out of the vehicle"

Honestly can't recall because I never read it now (it's not worth reading!) but that IS the line they spin. It isn't an impartial or fair Code of Practice so nobody here cares what the IPC (aka Gladstones debt crawlers) say.

Obviously you'll never have to pay this unfair invoice, so none of it really matters.

Appeal is pointless. I wouldn't bother unless you go (ON FOOT not by car!) and get photo evidence of:

• no entrance signs, and
• the lurking ticketer, videoed

Show us…

And please show us their two online photos, zoomed in on the times.

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82093633#Comment_82093633

Thank you again. Fortunately I passed by it today and managed to get pictures of no entrance signs stating that there are terms and conditions to parking. There is only a sign saying stopping is prohibited and doing so will result in a charge. I was unable to see anyone lurking about taking photos of cars.

Here are all the photos they have. I originally only posted the earliest and latest photos taken. The passenger was visible in most photos so they have been hidden.