DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 24, 2025, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now used satilite view on Google Maps to create this as
it has become clear that some people may get confused that the
sign is facing a dead end with no entry/exit point and will
attach to POPLA. Also, a provisional appeal to POPLA, which any
advice would be appriciated.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/tUvg0lF.png
--- Quote ---
>
> POPLA Appeal Statement
> PCN Reference:
> Vehicle Registration:
> POPLA Verification Code:
> Appellant:
> Date:
>
> Grounds of Appeal
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above. I
am appealing ParkingEye Ltd’s decision to reject my
initial appeal on the basis of:
>
>
- Inadequate and incorrectly positioned signage at the site
>
- Keeper liability cannot apply – no contract formed
>
- Failure to comply with BPA Code of Practice
>
- No valid contract was formed
>
> 1. Inadequate and Misplaced Entrance Signage – No
Contract Could Have Been Formed
> The alleged contravention is based on the presence of signage
that was not visible to any driver entering the car park from
the only logical access route. ParkingEye relies on an
“entrance sign” which is not positioned at the
actual estate or car park entrance but is instead located at the
end of a dead-end road which has no access, no traffic flow, and
no entry/exit point.
>
> I have attached an annotated satellite image of the area (see
Annex A) showing the following:
>
>
>
- The Estate Entrance on Rainsford Road, which is the only
viable route for vehicles to access the car park
>
- The Car Park Entrance and the flow of traffic into it
>
- The actual position of the sign being used to justify the PCN,
which is facing a dead-end with no vehicle access
>
- The photo location where I captured images of the signage
still facing away from the road
>
>
> Because of this placement, no driver entering the estate via
the correct and only available route would see the entrance
sign, let alone be able to read any terms and conditions. This
is a direct breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19 and
Appendix B, which require that:
>
> “Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly
visible to drivers when entering the land.”
>
> Since the signage is not visible to any motorist entering the
site lawfully, it is impossible for any contract to have been
formed.
>
> 2. Keeper Liability Cannot Apply – No Contract Formed
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but have made no
admission as to the identity of the driver.
>
> While ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper complies with the
technical requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, keeper liability can only apply where a valid
contract has been offered to and breached by the driver.
>
> In this case, no such contract could have been formed, because
the supposed “entrance” sign relied upon by
ParkingEye is not visible to any driver entering the car park.
The sign is positioned facing a dead-end road, not the actual
access route into the site, meaning no terms were visible or
communicated at the point of entry.
>
> As the BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signage to be
clear, prominent, and readable without stopping, this failure to
communicate any terms upon entry invalidates any alleged
contract.
>
> Accordingly, since no contract was formed, there can be no
breach, and no basis for holding the keeper liable under
Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
> Without this, the PCN cannot be enforced against me as keeper.
>
> 3. Breach of BPA Code of Practic
> ParkingEye has breached several key elements of the BPA Code:
>
>
>
- Entrance signage was not visible or readable from the route
taken into the car park
>
- The sign’s orientation faces away from oncoming traffic
>
- The sign is placed in a location that no vehicle would
logically pass
>
>
> The Code requires that drivers be able to read and understand
the terms before they decide to park. That clearly did not
happen here.
>
> 4. Supporting Evidence
> Annex A – Annotated satellite image showing site layout,
signage location, and entry route
>
> Photograph taken recently from the star-marked location,
showing the sign still faces away from oncoming vehicles
>
> Dashcam footage recorded on the date of the alleged offence,
showing the absence of any visible entrance signage.
> (Due to file size, this footage is available upon request.
Please contact me and I will provide it via file transfer,
email, or USB if necessary.)
>
> Conclusion
> The charge is unenforceable for the following reasons:
>
>
>
- There is no compliant entrance signage visible to motorists
entering the estate
>
- The supposed sign faces a dead-end and cannot be seen by
entering drivers
>
- I have not admitted to being the driver, and keeper liability
has not been established under POFA 2012
>
- No valid contract was offered or accepted due to the signage
issues
>
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and
instructs ParkingEye Ltd to cancel the charge.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 77939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 24, 2025, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve also added some further issues to bring to POPLA to
hopefully strengthen my appeal.
--- Quote ---
>
> POPLA Appeal – ParkingEye
> PCN Reference: 218534/426390
> Vehicle Registration:
> POPLA Verification Code:
> Appellant:
> Date:
>
> Grounds of Appeal:
>
> 1. Inadequate and incorrectly positioned entrance signage
> 2. Keeper liability cannot apply – no contract formed
> 3. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
> 4. Invalid use of ANPR technology
> 5. Pattern of repeated PCNs proves ongoing signage failure
>
> ---
>
> 1. Inadequate and Misplaced Entrance Signage – No Contract
Could Have Been Formed
>
> ParkingEye relies on an entrance sign that is:
>
> [*]Not visible to any vehicle entering via the only access
route
> [*]Facing a dead-end road with no entry/exit
> [*]Not positioned to face oncoming traffic
>
> I have provided:
>
> [*]An annotated satellite image (Annex A) showing the true
vehicle access route
> [*]The incorrect sign location
> [*]My photo location showing the sign is still facing away
>
> The BPA Code of Practice clearly states:
> [quote]“Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly
visible to drivers when entering the land.”
--- End Quote ---
Since no such sign is visible, no terms could be communicated
and no contract could have been formed.
---
2. Keeper Liability Cannot Apply – No Contract Formed
I am the registered keeper but have made no admission as to the
identity of the driver.
While ParkingEye’s NTK may follow PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, that
only applies where:
[*]A valid contract was formed with the driver
[*]That contract was breached
[*]The terms were clearly visible at the point of entry
In this case, the alleged contract was not offered at all — the
sign was not visible to incoming traffic, and the terms could
not be read or accepted. Therefore:
[*]No contract was formed
[*]No breach occurred
[*]Keeper liability cannot apply
---
3. Breach of BPA Code of Practice
ParkingEye has breached several elements of the BPA Code:
[*]No visible entrance signage from the actual route in
[*]Sign faces a dead-end, not traffic
[*]Drivers cannot read or accept terms before parking
This is a direct breach of:
--- Quote ---
> Appendix B: “Signs must be clear and visible on entry and
throughout the car park.”
--- End Quote ---
---
4. Invalid Use of ANPR Technology
The car park is enforced via ANPR, which logs vehicle entry at
the moment a car passes the camera. This moment is treated as
the start of a contract.
However:
[*]The entrance sign is not visible at this point
[*]The driver is recorded before any terms are communicated
[*]No fair opportunity is given to accept or reject the contract
The BPA Code requires:
--- Quote ---
> “ANPR should only be used where signage is adequate and
clearly visible upon entry.”
--- End Quote ---
That is not the case here. The use of ANPR without visible terms
invalidates the alleged contract.
---
5. Pattern of Repeated PCNs – Ongoing Signage Failure
I have since received two further PCNs for entering and parking
at the same car park on the two following days.
This strongly supports the argument that:
[*]The entrance signage is not visible
[*]No reasonable notice of terms was given
[*]A driver could unwittingly park there repeatedly
Had I seen any signage or restrictions, I would not have
returned the following day — let alone a third. This ongoing
issue demonstrates a fundamental failure to comply with BPA
standards.
---
Supporting Evidence
[*]Annex A – Annotated satellite map showing route, sign, and
photo position
[*]Photo of the entrance sign still facing the wrong direction
[*]Dashcam footage (available on request – file too large to
attach)
---
Conclusion
The parking charge is unenforceable for the following reasons:
[*]No visible entrance signage
[*]No contract was formed
[*]Keeper liability does not apply
[*]ANPR used improperly
[*]Repeat PCNs show driver was unaware of restrictions
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct
ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
Signed,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
#Post#: 77958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 24, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Decent start... Some brief initial observations:
- If you are going to argue that there is no keeper liability,
you'd be wise not to say who was driving, which you currently do
in point #5
- See what others think, but I'm not sure I'd bother with point
#5 at all, whilst in this case it shows the driver was unaware
of the restrictions, it could equally be the actions of a driver
who wilfully ignores any parking restrictions
- The entrance signage seems to be your strongest point, but it
might be worth addressing the rest of the signage to demonstrate
that the terms were not adequately conveyed to the driver. I
note that in your image of the entrance a number of signs
elsewhere in the car park are visible. This does not negate the
point that entrance signage is required, but equally might not
help the wider point around adequate signage.
- You mention dashcam footage "available on request". POPLA will
not request it, they will make their decision based on the
evidence presented to them. If you believe the dashcam footage
supports your case, include stills from it in your appeal
document.
#Post#: 77993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 24, 2025, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the observation regarding point 5, I hadn’t noticed
that. As with the first appeal, I did enlist the help of ChatGPT
and clearly hadn’t proof read it. I’ll have a think of if I
should include it at all but maybe I’ll add something about the
driver not wanted to be charged £300 to park for 3 days - will
see when I’ve got some time to tweak.
Stills of the dashcam is a fantastic way to get around the file
size, great idea - thanks!
#Post#: 78055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 24, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Available on request has been removed and replaced with a still
image, time stamped from the date and time of the alleged
contravention.
I don’t think going further into the signage would be a good
idea. They’re standard parkingeye signage which seem to be the
gold standard having looked at other posts.
I have added the following to point 5 to make it more relevant
and potentially strengthen it?
--- Quote ---
>
> 5. Pattern of Repeated PCNs – Ongoing Signage Failure
> Multiple Parking Charge Notices have since been issued to this
vehicle for additional visits to the same car park on subsequent
days.
>
> This strongly suggests that:
>
> The entrance signage remained non-visible or unclear
>
> No reasonable notice of terms or restrictions was provided
>
> A motorist could unknowingly return and park multiple times,
unaware that any parking charge scheme was in operation
>
> It is relevant to note that the driver works at another unit
within the industrial estate and is paid a base wage of £135 per
day, with no additional overtime or unsociable hour
enhancements.
>
> No reasonable person in such circumstances would knowingly
choose to incur parking fines of £80 (discounted) or £100 (full
rate) per day — more than half of their daily income — just to
attend work. The only logical conclusion is that the driver was
unaware of the restrictions, further reinforcing the claim that
the signage is wholly inadequate and failed to alert site users
to the presence of any parking enforcement.
>
> This pattern demonstrates a fundamental and ongoing failure to
meet the BPA Code of Practice and the requirement to clearly
convey terms at the point of entry.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 25, 2025, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After some time to think about if I should point out the signage
in the car park, I thought I may as well and then consider if I
should put it in the final appeal. Below is what I've settled on
so far
--- Quote ---
>
> 6. Internal Signage Does Not Satisfy Entrance Signage
Requirements
>
> It is acknowledged that signage may be present within the car
park itself, displaying terms and conditions. However, such
signs do not satisfy the BPA requirement for entrance signage.
>
> The BPA Code of Practice states:
>
> "Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly visible
to drivers when entering the land."
>
> This is a fundamental requirement. The supposed contract
begins at the moment a driver enters the site, yet in this case,
the terms are not visible until after that moment. Internal
signs cannot retroactively form a contract once a vehicle has
already entered private land — especially if ANPR captures entry
before any terms are visible.
>
> Furthermore:
>
>
- Once inside, the driver may be unable to turn around
>
- They may be unaware they are even being monitored
>
- The only chance to avoid a charge is at the point of entry,
and that opportunity was not provided
>
>
> Therefore, the existence of internal signs does not remedy the
failure of entrance signage and does not support the
enforceability of this charge.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve got the second appeal rejection from parkingeye. I’m
thinking of mentioning the other popla appeal I have already
submitted but also, part of me likes the idea of letting POPLA
assessors contradict each other.
Thoughts?
#Post#: 79189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 2, 2025, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just recived another PCN for one of the issues already
appealed against with PE - and rejected. The back says that I
have been or have identified myself as the driver. Is this PE
trying to now use protections of freedoms act to hold the rk
liable? Should I just ignore and continue at popla?
I also have evidence they replied to my appeals saying I had
said I was not the driver, which i didnt. I simply said i was rk
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0u8aLRc.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/OtkAYNv.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/scYXdPO.png
#Post#: 79200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: b789
Date: July 2, 2025, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ask them why they have two different versions of the same NtK
for the alleged contravention on 30/04/2025?
One is issued on 05/05/2025 and is almost PoFA compliant and the
other is issued on 28/06/2025 and clearly is not PoFA compliant
but under the PoFA statement on the back says you have
identified yourself or been identified as the driver.
Without a saatisfactory explanation, you can further report them
to the DVLA and the BPA (for what that is worth).
#Post#: 79206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 2, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Ask them why they have two different versions of the same NtK
for the alleged contravention on 30/04/2025?
>
> One is issued on 05/05/2025 and is almost PoFA compliant and
the other is issued on 28/06/2025 and clearly is not PoFA
compliant but under the PoFA statement on the back says you have
identified yourself or been identified as the driver.
>
> Without a saatisfactory explanation, you can further report
them to the DVLA and the BPA (for what that is worth).
>
--- End Quote ---
I should note that the ref number at the top of the one I
recieved today is the same as the orginal, does this change
anything?
How would I get in contact with PE regarding this? Is it a case
of appealing again?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page