Parkingeye PCN {POPLA APPEAL WON}

Your appeal was successful
As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: The appellant says the grace period is non-complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned. They say that there is no evidence of land owner authority. They say that there is no evidence of the period of parking. They say that the is no planning permission for pole mounted cameras or signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA.
As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, I have not considered these.

As keeper of the above vehicle, I contend I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:


1. Grace Periods, BPA code of practice non-compliance

2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces, with many also in Welsh, and signs are confusing & ambiguous in nature

3 No Evidence of Landowner Authority -

4 No evidence of a “period of parking”, NtK fails to meet POFA requirements

5 The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

6 No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from Cardiff Council



1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance


The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the start (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes).

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

So the BPA Code of Practice (13.2 & 13.4) clearly states that the Grace Periods before and after a parking event should both be a minimum of 10 minutes each, a total of a minimum of 20 minutes per parking event.


A parking event does not begin and end with entry and exit of the land in a moving vehicle.
It is therefore argued that the stated duration of the visit in question (which ParkingEye claim was 2 hours 20 minutes) does not include any reasonable grace periods before and after any parking event began, as clearly set out by the BPA.

When allowances are made for reasonable grace periods before and after parking, as stipulated by the BPA, the length of this visit is reduced to that of or below TWO HOURS, and therefore falls in line with the signed permitted stay of TWO HOURS, therefore rendering this charge invalid!



2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces, with many also in Welsh (I am not a Welsh speaker) and signs are confusing & ambiguous in nature.

The initial signs upon entry to the car park are poorly positioned at approximately 8-10ft above the ground, surrounded by and in the shadow of trees, bushes, and several other retail signs, and are very easy to miss as you drive in. (appendix A)

Furthermore, one of the two (different) main entrance signs is purely in Welsh! (appendix

Should anyone even happen to see this sign, how are they even supposed to read and understand it as they drive past, if they do not speak Welsh and it is in a foreign language to them??

This is a large & busy motorway services car park, and the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, mainly mounted at least 8-10ft high, signs are not fully visible from many parking spaces, and again also several solely in Welsh.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, large areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed at the entrance either - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign (in English), nor parked near one.

The signs are also confusing & ambiguous in nature.

The signs seen on a return visit to site by myself state,
“2hrs free parking, parking tariffs apply after the 2hour free period, (no return within 2hrs)
Parking tariff for car 2-24hrs £15.
This signage is actually ambiguous.

It firstly implies that following the initial 2hrs free parking period, that the subsequent 2-24 hrs are charged at £15, so it follows that in any 24 HOUR PERIOD, a car can only park for TWO HOURS FREE without having to pay the tariff, or incur a charge.

However, by allowing a return after only 2hrs, a vehicle could actually park for 2hrs, leave, and return 2hrs later and park for 2hrs again, and so on, and so on, pretty much indefinitely, all without ever having to pay the tariff or breach terms and incur a charge!
Therefore it could also be interpreted that the signs also state that ParkingEye willingly allow a vehicle a total of TWELVE HOURS FREE parking in any 24H PERIOD, without paying any tariff, or contravening any terms and incurring a charge!

It is clear from this that the so called tariff is in place only to inhibit long stay parking, (especially when you note the tariff is £15, who in their right mind would pay £15 to stay an additional 20mintes, or an additional hour, etc), and that the ambiguous and confusing nature of the signage actually states that ParkingEye allows free parking for TWELVE HOURS over a 24HR PERIOD, and any tariff or subsequent parking charge is merely a disguised penalty against long term parking!

I therefore interpret that the (confusing & ambiguous) signs here, also state that Parkingeye are happy for any vehicle to stay for free for TWELVE HOURS in any 24HR PERIOD, without paying the tariff or breaching terms and incurring a parking charge, and as the vehicle in question “allegedly” stayed for 2hrs 20mins (despite that not including any grace periods as outlined in section 1) in a 24hr period, this therefore also renders this charge invalid!



3 No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted 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 court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

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 site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.



4 No Evidence of “period or parking” – NtK fails to meet PoFA 2012 requirements


Contrary to the provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was ever even parked. The only evidence provided by ParkingEye was that of images of a moving vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the property, and at times claimed by ParkingEye.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”.
Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

The Notice to Keeper from ParkingEye, only states:
“Welcome Break <location> ,
Time in car park 2hours 20minutes,
Arrival time dd/mm/yyyy 09:14:35,
Departure time dd/mm/yyyy 11:35:02”

The ParkingEye NtK simply states TIME IN CAR PARK with two small photographs and two lines of text, showing a moving vehicle entered the property at 09.14 and exited the property at 11.35.

No evidence of any actual parking is provided, and the PERIOD OF PARKING is not specifically stated (as required by PoFA 2012), as it is simply not known by ParkingEye!
For all I know the driver was stuck in a bad queue in the KFC drive thru and never even parked at all???

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which again states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was physically parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

Also, as ‘grace periods are of significant importance in this case, and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the moving vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times cited by ParkingEye, it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence of an actual period of parking to comply with POFA.

Due to the NtK failing POFA 2012, no keeper liability can be invoked!




5. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

As stated above in section 4, the NtK from ParkingEye fails to meet POFA 2012 requirements by not stating the period of parking, therefore liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper, using POFA!

A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout the appeal (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NtK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with ParkingEye to show that I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot!.

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge due to failing POFA, and this charge is invalid!



6. No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from <city> Council

From my investigations, ParkingEye do not have Planning Permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras, nor do they have advertising consent for signage.

The <city> council website (https://www.xxxxxxxx.gov.uk/planning) has an interactive online planning portal, allowing members of the public to search and view all historic, existing, pending and future planning application made within the city over the past 25yrs.

I have carried out a detailed search of this site and can find no record of any planning application whether historic, current or pending, made by ParkingEye for any pole mounted ANPR cameras or advertising signage at this site!

This shows ParkingEye are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request ParkingEye provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the signs and pole-mounted ANPR cameras.