DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118629--------------------------------------------------
VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: RDLMSD
Date: May 13, 2026, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I entered the site on 26th April purely to look for a parking
space of which there was none. However, due to severe congestion
and the layout of the car park, I was unable to exit promptly.
The area had effectively become gridlocked, with vehicles
obstructing movement in multiple directions. There appeared to
be no clear one-way system or traffic management in place, which
contributed significantly to the blockage and confusion.
At one stage, I had vehicles both in front of and behind me,
preventing any possibility of movement or exit. At no point did
I intentionally park the vehicle or leave it unattended. The
delay was entirely the result of the traffic situation within
the car park, which was completely outside of my control.
I entered the site at 14:33:42 and left the car park at 14:44:03
so a total of 10 minutes and 21 seconds.
Any delay was caused solely by the inability to move freely
within the car park itself.
I've appealed to landowner who has said they lease it to
Parking Eye and can't (likely don't want to) do anything.
I've not appealed yet as the Parking Eye online appeals process
asks for a name and whether I'm the driver, registered keeper or
other.
The date of the pcn issued is 1st May 2026 but this did not
arrive until 9th May.
Below are images of the PCN, an image of the parking terms on
site which i found online and screenshot of the online appeals
process.
HTML https://ibb.co/TMCNW95M
HTML https://ibb.co/4w4tXmyP
HTML https://ibb.co/wZMyrTqz
HTML https://ibb.co/NgQTShCp
HTML https://ibb.co/MDjbkKTB
HTML https://ibb.co/PzcnByjy
HTML https://ibb.co/vxL6R9Mg
Please advise. Ive seen the template on this forum and wish to
know how to use that on online appeals process or is it worth
adding the gridlocked nature of my predicament on the day. I
have no dashcam footage
#Post#: 118636--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: Sander333
Date: May 13, 2026, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You appeal as the registered keeper do not give any indication
as to who was the driver. These are not uncommon issues in car
parks and parking companies have differing views on how to deal
for e.g SWMBO had one by premier park and it went to POPLA case
won. One was dealt with by NCP and they withdrew it at the first
appeal.
See where the dice is rolled with the parking company stressing
no parking took place they may have received a number of appeals
in this instance.
#Post#: 118663--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: RDLMSD
Date: May 14, 2026, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok how's this as a response:
I am writing to formally appeal Parking Charge Notice reference
**** relating to vehicle registration ****, with ANPR timestamps
recorded at **14:44:03** and **14:44:42** on Sunday 26th April
at the VHK Southall car park.
The allegation that the vehicle was “parked” is wholly
inaccurate and unsupported by the evidence provided.
The ANPR images merely show the vehicle entering and exiting the
site. They do not demonstrate that any parking took place, that
a parking space was occupied, or that any parking terms were
accepted or breached.
The vehicle entered the site solely for the purpose of
attempting to locate an available parking space. However, no
parking spaces were available. Due to significant congestion
within the car park, vehicles became obstructed in multiple
directions and movement through the site was severely
restricted.
At various points, vehicles were positioned both in front of and
behind the vehicle, preventing immediate exit. The car park
appeared gridlocked, exacerbated by a lack of clear traffic flow
or one-way management.
To be absolutely clear:
* No parking space was occupied at any stage
* No occupant exited the vehicle
* The vehicle was never left unattended
* The vehicle remained in transit throughout the duration
recorded
Remaining temporarily within a congested car park while
attempting to locate a space, before ultimately exiting due to
the absence of availability, does not constitute “parking.” No
reasonable interpretation of the circumstances could conclude
otherwise.
Furthermore, the timestamps themselves demonstrate a very short
period between entry and exit, entirely consistent with a
vehicle attempting to find a space before leaving due to the
absence of available parking.
Given the above, this Parking Charge Notice has been issued
unfairly and without proper consideration of the actual
circumstances. I therefore request that the notice be cancelled
immediately.
Please also note that no assumptions should be made as to the
identity of the driver, and no such admissions are made within
this appeal.
I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been
resolved.
#Post#: 118680--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 14, 2026, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’d start your appeal with a summary, eg
--- Quote ---
> I did not park, there were no parking spaces available and I
was prevented from leaving by traffic congestion. I will not be
paying this invoice.
--- End Quote ---
Also, don’t use “unfairly”. They don’t care about “fairness”.
#Post#: 118697--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: ixxy
Date: May 14, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally I'd cut the waffle and keep it brief. The driver
wasn't able to find a space and was unable to leave quickly as
the site was congested.
They won't know there was a problem on site when the driver was
there so as far as they are concerned the driver broke the
rules.
All the stuff about entry and exit images isn't going to make
any difference for a first appeal, that's how ANPR enforcement
works. You'll get someone on minimum wage assessing your
initial appeal, make it easy for them to grant it, don't hide a
half decent appeal reason amongst a load of legal waffle, they
will just gloss over it.
#Post#: 118701--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 14, 2026, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> Personally I'd cut the waffle and keep it brief. The driver
wasn't able to find a space and was unable to leave quickly as
the site was congested.
>
> They won't know there was a problem on site when the driver
was there so as far as they are concerned the driver broke the
rules.
>
> All the stuff about entry and exit images isn't going to make
any difference for a first appeal, that's how ANPR enforcement
works. You'll get someone on minimum assessing your initial
appeal, make it easy for them to grant it, don't hide a half
decent appeal reason amongst a load of legal waffle, they will
just gloss over it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Bingo.
Lead with the driver being unable to park, and being unable to
leave promptly due to congestion. It's true (and in this case
very relevant) that ANPR doesn't capture actual parking, but
this argument is much stronger if you lead with the reason why
that fact has led to an erroneous charge being issued on this
occasion specifically.
#Post#: 120500--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: RDLMSD
Date: June 3, 2026, 3:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As advised I kept it short and sweet. Got this response via
email and told me to appeal to POPLA. Any advice here please as
not sure what would be the best grounds to appeal on especially
as I've got no dashcam footage
#Post#: 120501--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: RDLMSD
Date: June 3, 2026, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/21kJSYvh/Screenshot-20260603-092956-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/21kJSYvh
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mCDwSNw2/Screenshot-20260603-093119-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/mCDwSNw2
HTML https://i.ibb.co/kVMtz4K8/Screenshot-20260603-093124-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/kVMtz4K8
HTML https://i.ibb.co/99Y483VK/Screenshot-20260603-093129-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/99Y483VK
HTML https://i.ibb.co/gLRRVgVJ/Screenshot-20260603-093142-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/gLRRVgVJ
HTML https://i.ibb.co/rRPWsLDq/Screenshot-20260603-093203-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/rRPWsLDq
HTML https://i.ibb.co/RkQx4B3y/Screenshot-20260603-093206-Outlook.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/RkQx4B3y
#Post#: 120513--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 3, 2026, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Same grounds for POPLA appeal, but you may want to read and
quote from
HTML https://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/download/Parking%20Eye%20Ltd%20Case%20No%203JD08399%20judgement.pdf
--- Quote ---
>
> It seems to me a customer who enters that car park, cannot
find a space and leaves
> the car park is not aware that if they are doing that for more
than 20 minutes they
> are liable to a charge. It seems to me that the signage makes
it clear that if you
> park you are liable to pay a charge.
> The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove
whether this car was
> parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the
balance of probabilities.
> On that balance of probabilities, as I have indicated, I am
satisfied the Defendant
> was not parked and I am not satisfied that it was clear to the
Defendants that by
> parking or entering or remaining within the area covered by
Parking Eye Ltd they
> were liable for a charge, that the signage does not make that
clear in my view
> unless one gets out of the car, walks up to it, by which point
it seems to me one
> would be parked, and even if this was not the case, even if
there were signs saying
> that, I cannot see that a charge for driving around a car park
can in any way be a
> genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.
--- End Quote ---
From
HTML http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html
--- Quote ---
> 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral
Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park
space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was
therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park,
not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the
terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that
in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of
loss.
> In an important case, the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the
defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week
did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the
time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time
parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and
therefore there was no contravention of the terms and
conditions.
--- End Quote ---
Whatever POPLA decides, this is extremely unlikely to actually
go to court because clearly it would be thrown out if it did. If
Parking Eye engage DCB Legal in due course, know that they do so
for cases they’re not confident about winning, and the process
is designed to intimidate you into paying, and DCB Legal usually
discontinue at the eleventh hour, before having to pay the court
fee.
#Post#: 124261--------------------------------------------------
Re: VHK SOUTHALL - PCN issued - never parked as no parking got
gridlocked - Parking
DIR By: RDLMSD
Date: July 10, 2026, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So appealed to Popla using ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham
17/03/2014) as evidence and basically used what i drafted
further up the thread.
Parking Eye submitted their rebuttal on 21st days citing Parking
Eye vs Beavis along with photos of my cat entering and exiting
the car park which I've already shared above.
I have 7 days to respond to their rebuttal. They sent the
following and would greatly appreciate advice:
Case History
26/04/2026
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and
conditions, prior to DVLA request
30/04/2026
01/05/2026
POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
01/05/2026
10/05/2026
15/05/2026
15/05/2026
for processing.
03/06/2026
Purchased...
Rules and Conditions
VHK, Southall is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on
the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing
that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and
throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of
the site.
All available payment options can be found within the enclosed
signage. The full, correct vehicle registration must be inputted
when parking payments are made.
Please see below information relating to the payment options on
site:
Payment Options: Pay by phone & payment machines
Number of Paid Parking Machines: 1
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not
council owned and that we have written authority to operate and
issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or
landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in
his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or
who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on
behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the
contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other
contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It
follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the
motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
This car park has been registered with the British Parking
Association and is compliant with the Single Code of Practice.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions
and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private
car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking
Contract, including making payment as required and entering your
vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or
terminals as directed."
“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract,
you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice
(the “Parking Charge”)"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of
parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this
private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose
of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the
vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the
processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided
so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from
the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The
wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in
question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and
that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to
take enforcement action against those who breach the parking
terms and conditions in operation.
We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist
time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not
they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.
These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are
fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice.
Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of
ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and
processes are of the highest quality and have built up this
expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR
cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these
are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data
and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly
required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for
Police investigations.
Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at
a site, we will test the system extensively before parking
charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to
function normally without parking charges being issued, to
ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains
guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply
with.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition)
systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to
regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any
adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are
captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network
Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately
synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly
believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an
automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team. If at
any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be
deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated
and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are
directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site
therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated
date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded
locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been
issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that
all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from
the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us,
where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This
ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other
procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued
correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has
occurred in this case.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge
amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant,
unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme
Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC
67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the
value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that
the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair,
but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts,
where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor
‘unconscionable’.
We operate a grace period on this site, that allows for the
motorist to park and familiarise themselves with the terms and
conditions of parking. However, there must be a cut off, and
once this is overstayed a charge will be issued.
We can confirm that the grace period was applied to the
vehicle’s stay, however, this grace period was overstayed and a
Parking Charge was issued accordingly. There is no obligation to
disclose the grace period as this is commercially sensitive and
subject to abuse should this period become common knowledge.
Clause 5.2 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
states ‘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. A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace
Period. The grace period does not apply other than where the
driver has parked in compliance with the applicable terms and
conditions – it does not apply in isolation so as to allow free
parking up to the sum of the consideration and grace periods.’
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping
with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate
colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in
the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant
to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking
Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the
website appeal document included in this evidence pack.
Whitelist Lookup - REDACTED
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/ftla/p/10823:444: port field too long