DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 3, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is what I’ve got so far. Obviously evidence will be
attached to the actual appeal. I assume I’m appealing it on the
PE website because there’s no other way to lol
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write regarding the above Parking Charge Notice issued in
relation to a contravention on 30 April 2025.
>
> In your letter dated 27 May 2025, you acknowledged that I had:
>
> “…stated that [I was] not the driver of the vehicle… [and]
have not indicated who was.”
>
> You also confirmed that you do not know the driver’s name or
address, which is necessary under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 if you wish to pursue the registered keeper.
>
> However, in your subsequent letter dated 28 June 2025, you
proceed to reject my appeal and imply the matter can be pursued
against me, despite the fact that:
> •
> •
> •
the alleged contravention, far outside the limit required under
Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
>
> Your actions are therefore:
> •
> •
> •
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
>
> ⸻
>
> Request
>
> I now formally request:
> 1.
> 2.
was formed and PoFA does not apply
> 3.
misrepresentation of driver identification
>
> If this is not resolved promptly, I will be submitting formal
complaints to:
> •
Code
> •
your KADOE agreement
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 5, 2025, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Because I’m petty and want to waste as much of their time as
they’re wasting of mine, I’ve submitted a SAR. Hopefully it’ll
also get them to disclose that they have no reason to be
identifying me as the driver.
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear Data Protection Officer,
>
> I am submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK
General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection
Act 2018.
>
> Please provide all personal data you hold about me,
specifically relating to:
> •
> •
> •
including:
> •
> •
> •
>
> This includes, but is not limited to:
> •
(including annotations or call centre notes)
> •
identified as the driver or have identified myself”
> •
> •
> •
processing and storing my data
> •
rejections sent to or from my name or relating to my
registration
>
> I understand I am entitled to receive this information within
one calendar month from the date of this request.
>
> I have attached a photo of my driving licence as proof of ID.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 10, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, the first evidence pack from PE has come back. They clearly
used a boilerplate example becuase they brought up beavis v
parkingeye which I never challenged them on. They supplied
contracts with the landowner, which I never challenged. They
havent actually rebutted any of my points and used out of
context photos of the signage. Below is their repsonse, followed
by Mine
ParkingEye
--- Quote ---
>
> Case History
> 28/04/2025
> Date of event
> System check/manual check identified breach of terms and
conditions, prior to DVLA request
> 30/04/2025
> Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
> 02/05/2025
> DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA
- Issued To: Keeper)
> 02/05/2025
> Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-212
> 07/05/2025
> Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
> 07/05/2025
> Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for
processing.
> 20/05/2025
> Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA
(w/FAQS POFA)
> 21/06/2025
> Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-212
> 23/06/2025
> Letter Issued - **Unsuccessful POPLA - Pro-Active
>
>
> Rules and Conditions
> This site is a Patrons only free stay car park when a patron
enters their registration into the terminal at reception 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.
>
> 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
> The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking
management companies regarding grace periods which can be found
in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
>
>
www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
>
> Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice in relation to 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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’.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is
consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that
the data collected is handled in the same manner on each
occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms
and conditions of parking in operation.
>
> 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 Parkingeye 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
Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach
the parking terms and conditions in operation.
>
>
> Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This
technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and
exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay
that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment
or permit that may relate to the registration captured.
>
> This car park has been registered with the British Parking
Association and is compliant with the 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.
>
> Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to
demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and
issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter
of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is
widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the
County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements
is the effective date from which the agreement commences, and
the authority is given.
>
> Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the
parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking
Charge to this vehicle.
>
--- End Quote ---
My Response
--- Quote ---
>
> I wish to respond to ParkingEye’s evidence submission as
follows:
>
> ParkingEye has not addressed or rebutted my core argument that
the entrance sign is not visible to drivers entering the site.
>
> Their photo of the sign is misleading. It is a close-up image
that does not show whether the sign is visible from a vehicle on
approach.
>
> I have submitted a dashcam still (28/04/2025) and a photo
(30/06/2025) showing the sign cannot be seen by a driver
entering the estate.
>
> I have also submitted two additional photos (10/07/2025) of
the same sign, taken from the actual approach. These confirm it
faces sideways, not toward oncoming traffic.
>
> The sign is not legible or visible at the point where
ParkingEye claims a contract is formed.
>
> No contract could have been formed, so no terms could have
been breached.
>
> The BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signs to be visible
on entry. ParkingEye has not shown this is the case.
>
> No driver has been identified, and I, as keeper, have not been
held liable under PoFA as no contract was formed.
>
> ParkingEye’s evidence is generic, lacks context, and does not
answer the specific points I raised. I respectfully maintain
that the charge is unenforceable and ask that my appeal be
upheld.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 15, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is getting very strange now. I asked on their website via
the privacy form for them to explain why a second NtK was issued
with an allegation of the driver being identified. This morning
I woke up to an email saying that it had been passed to the
privacy team.
They've just follwed up with another carbon copy appeal
rejection, however, with todays date. Same PCN and POPLA ref
code
#Post#: 81223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: ixxy
Date: July 16, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course they have a standard evidence pack, it would be
expensive to craft a unique response to each case. The duplicate
letters seems odd unless they are reminder letters, if they have
the same reference it's only one PCN, don't over think it, their
systems will be automated so it's unlikely to be human error.
As for the email, you sent a query via their privacy form and
received a reply confirming it will be dealt with by their
privacy team, not really that odd.
#Post#: 81237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 16, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> Of course they have a standard evidence pack, it would be
expensive to craft a unique response to each case. The duplicate
letters seems odd unless they are reminder letters, if they have
the same reference it's only one PCN, don't over think it, their
systems will be automated so it's unlikely to be human error.
>
> As for the email, you sent a query via their privacy form and
received a reply confirming it will be dealt with by their
privacy team, not really that odd.
>
--- End Quote ---
I do find it odd.
It’s not a reminder for a PCN. It says Parking Charge Notice and
on the back says I’ve been IDd as the driver - which I have not
done.
It has the same PCN number as another PCN issued a few months
prior but is issued on a different date and they’ve reissued a
second rejection letter with the same POPLA code
#Post#: 81358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2025, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just keep it all as evidence.
#Post#: 81410--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 17, 2025, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Second POPLA operator docs came through today - Same boilerplate
response with no direct rebuttal of any of my point and
evidence.
I’m kind of using this forum as a secondary way to document
times and dates of what happens when - I do apologise about any
unnecessary notifications anyone gets.
#Post#: 81463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: b789
Date: July 17, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just point out to the assessor any points from your appeal that
they have not rebutted and rebut any new points they may have
raised in the "evidence'!
#Post#: 81467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN – No Permit – Wasabi Sushi &
Bento""
DIR By: beedmo
Date: July 17, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Just point out to the assessor any points from your appeal
that they have not rebutted and rebut any new points they may
have raised in the "evidence'!
>
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely. It boils my blood that they include a close up photo
of the entrance sign the speak is hinged on. Completely out of
context and borderline fraudulent!
Anyway, my reply was this;
--- Quote ---
> ParkingEye have failed to address the central argument of my
appeal: that the entrance signage is not visible to drivers
entering the site.
>
> Their evidence consists of a close-up sign photo with no
context and no indication of visibility from the access route.
>
> My dashcam still and photos (already submitted) prove the sign
faces away from the road, making it unreadable and invisible to
incoming vehicles.
>
> As a result, no contract could have been formed, and no breach
could have occurred.
>
> Their response is boilerplate and does not engage with the
specific photographic evidence or rebut the issue of inadequate
signage.
>
> I respectfully ask that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the
PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page