DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122516--------------------------------------------------
Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: Toyota
Date: June 21, 2026, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Our vehicle entered the carpark Margate Lido.
Map image below:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/e3wPbuWs2rvhT4168
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/e3wPbuWs2rvhT4168
The driver parked up and spent few minutes unloading for beach
day, and then attempts were made to pay for the parking. All in
was 10 minutes.
There were 2 parking machines. One is old and was not working at
all (one on the left). The one that was working (centre of the
image), was not working with the card, not touch nor when
physically entering the card. Numerous attempts were made.
Only remaining option was to pay by app. Driver did not have a
phone capable of this so the driver left the carpark.
Unfortunately no photos were taken of card not working- it was
assumed that this was an in and out and not possibly chargeable.
Now received below in the post for 10 minutes in the carpark.
Any advice would be appreciated.
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/fY0xnxcg"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LzpZJZGF/scan20062026-1-page-0001-2.jpg"<br
/>alt="scan20062026-1-page-0001-2" border="0"></a>
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/Xx7kYDHM"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Swt7fcSG/scan20062026-2-page-0001-1.jpg"<br
/>alt="scan20062026-2-page-0001-1" border="0"></a>
#Post#: 122521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No contract was entered into.
You left after a short consideration period where payment was
not possible.
Make an appeal to PE as vehicle keeper.
Do not disclose who was driving.
So the appeal would read, "I understand that the driver
attempted to make payment but neither machine was working -
after a number of attempts the driver decided to leave and
therefore no contract was formed - as such, no contract could
have been breached."
#Post#: 122597--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: Toyota
Date: June 22, 2026, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
I have now seen in another forum that this carpark didnt have a
current landowner authorisation in 2024. If I want to try use
this, do I send this in at this stage?
Is there a template to send, or should I just send something
along the lines you wrote.
#Post#: 123972--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: Toyota
Date: July 7, 2026, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> No contract was entered into.
>
> You left after a short consideration period where payment was
not possible.
>
> Make an appeal to PE as vehicle keeper.
>
> Do not disclose who was driving.
>
> So the appeal would read, "I understand that the driver
attempted to make payment but neither machine was working -
after a number of attempts the driver decided to leave and
therefore no contract was formed - as such, no contract could
have been breached."
>
--- End Quote ---
Now received this:
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 179816/897692
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking
Charge incurred on 14 June
2026 at 13:46, at Lido 2, Margate CT9 1RX car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been
referred for further
information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at
the date and time of the
breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have
not indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is
required to pay this parking
charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current
postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and
the current postal address
of the driver and pass this notice to them, or alternatively,
you as the Registered Keeper,
are invited to pay the Parking Charge.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue,
the parking charge has not
been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current
address of the driver, we
have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge
from you, the registered
keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of
schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying
with the applicable
conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.
Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on
behalf of the driver, and you
do not provide the full name and current postal address of the
driver, Parkingeye will be
obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.
Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village, Chorley,
PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454
Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable
you to provide the
evidence requested. If this information is not provided within
28 days, the appeal may well
be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Evidence can be uploaded via our website by visiting;
HTML https://portal.parkingeye.co.uk/
or
sent by post to the below address. We strongly recommend that
only copies of evidence
are sent to us, as we will be unable to return original
documentation if this is sent via post.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on
0330 555 4444 or by
visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal
order to ParkingEye Ltd,
PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team
#Post#: 123976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 7, 2026, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard fishing letter trying to get you to identify the
driver.
You can tell them to get lost (examples can be found on the
forum if you search for them) or you can ignore, you will get a
POPLA code along with a rejection of your appeal in due course.
#Post#: 124989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: Toyota
Date: July 17, 2026, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Just an update and I'd be grateful for any advice before I
submit my POPLA appeal.
ParkingEye have now rejected my keeper appeal and issued a POPLA
code.
The relevant part of their rejection states:
"We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we
are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the
terms and conditions were not breached. Our records confirm that
no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event,
despite there being payment methods available."
That is the only point they make. They have not addressed what I
actually said in my appeal.
To recap the facts:
Vehicle entered Lido 2, Margate.
Total ANPR time on site was approximately 10 minutes.
Driver intended to park and pay.
One payment machine was completely out of service.
The other machine repeatedly failed to accept card payment
despite several attempts.
The driver did not have a smartphone capable of paying by app.
As payment could not be made, the driver left the site.
No photographs of the faulty machines were taken as the driver
assumed leaving after only around 10 minutes would not result in
a charge.
ParkingEye have not produced any evidence that the payment
machines were working. They simply say "payment methods were
available".
My intention for POPLA is to argue:
No contract was formed because the driver attempted to pay,
could not do so, and left.
The driver left within a reasonable consideration period.
ParkingEye has failed to produce any evidence that the payment
machines were operational (maintenance logs, fault reports or
transaction logs).
ParkingEye should be put to strict proof of landowner authority.
Does that sound like the right approach?
Also, I have seen suggestions that ParkingEye's
contract/authority at this site may have expired or changed. Is
there any evidence of that, or is it just forum speculation? If
there is anything concrete I would obviously include it in the
POPLA appeal.
Many thanks for any advice.
#Post#: 124992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 17, 2026, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
“approximately 10 minutes” was actually 10m26s, which they will
say exceeds the “consideration period” which will either be 5 or
10 minutes depending on the size of the car park. So just be
careful of being vague in your appeal in case they pick up on
this.
#Post#: 124994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 17, 2026, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They may well say that 10 minutes exceeds the consideration
period but that is in a scenario where payment machines were
available and working.
In a scenario where payment machines were not working it is
perfectly reasonable that this 'consideration period' be
extended.
#Post#: 124997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 17, 2026, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> They may well say that 10 minutes exceeds the consideration
period but that is in a scenario where payment machines were
available and working.
>
> In a scenario where payment machines were not working it is
perfectly reasonable that this 'consideration period' be
extended.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree, that’s a good point, but how do you make it to POPLA
who will fall back on saying they only make their judgements
based on the facts, not on what’s reasonable or not? It’s likely
that this might hold more weight in court, if it came to that,
but that’s a long way off.
#Post#: 125058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Margate LIDO - PCN - 10 minutes - machine not working
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 18, 2026, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a5784276d6d5c7e2845ca02/open_letter.pdf
Scroll down to paragraph 17.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1