Only just found this forum. Unfortunately the driver is already quite some way down the track in terms of appeal. Nonetheless, perhaps someone here can offer some insight/suggestions please.
I've read the FAQs and threads. I've also read up a little on some case histories such as Beavis, Cargius and Heggie.

Here's the sequence of events...
1. Driver picked up courtesy car while own car being repaired. Driver signed paperwork from courtesy car company stating that driver would be liable for parking fines and admin fees.
2. Driver parked courtesy car in Parking Eye Car Park which uses ANPR. The car park offers 30 mins free parking, charges apply thereafter. (For info, the driver had previously used the car park on an infrequent basis, and still has a valid ticket from parking their own vehicle 4 months prior).
3. Driver entered reg number in machine, paid for parking to cover 1 hour, displayed ticket in windscreen.
4. Driver returned within the paid for period and left car park.
5. Courtesy car returned a couple of days later. Parking ticket was in vehicle and was also returned.
6. PE contact courtesy car company who pass driver details to PE.
7. Courtesy car company write to driver with invoice for £54 admin fees relating to their handling of the PCN.
8. Driver advises courtesy car company that there will be no payment to them at this time.
9. Approx 5 weeks after the alleged parking offence PE contact driver with Parking Charge Notice of £100 for "not purchasing the appropriate parking or parking without a valid permit in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage". The PCN has photos of the courtesy car entering and leaving the car park. Time in car park is stated as 57 minutes.
10. Driver immediately writes to PE Appeals Department setting out the circumstances (courtesy car, clearly remembered purchasing 1 hour ticket, entered reg details from key fob). Driver begins to think that it could be that they may have mistyped the unfamiliar car reg into the parking machine, so in the letter to PE the driver specifically requests PE to furnish details of all number plates entering the car park around the same time period.
11. PE respond to driver asking for valid parking ticket or PayByPhone transaction details. The number plate details that the driver requested are not provided by PE, nor is there even any acknowledgement of the driver's request in PE's letter.
12. Drivers writes in response to PE pointing out that the driver no longer has the ticket (and why) and that the number plate information requested previously by the driver has not been furnished by PE. Driver repeats the request for PE to provide number plate information in and out of the car park during the period in question with associated times.
13. PE write to driver stating that the appeal has been unsuccessful: "Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking despite there being payment methods available on the day in question". PE again fail to acknowledge the repeated request by the driver for number plate records, let alone provide the information requested. PE provide POPLA code.
14. Driver calls POPLA to get a better understanding of the Appeal process and stating that PE have not provided the number plate info requested. POPLA assure driver that they will request this of PE as part of the Appeals process.
15. Driver submits online appeal to POPLA. This includes a quite detailed response on the “operator evidence” and a further request for the number plate information. The comments made on the operator evidence included:
- Sufficient parking was purchased, and for a period in excess of the time parked
- PE have repeated failed to provide the number plate info and has thus failed to provide the full, necessary and sufficient evidence of all records to justify their reason for rejection beyond reasonable doubt
- The driver has not set out to deliberately enter wrong information into the parking machine nor to deprive PE of revenue. PE has suffered no loss. This appears to have been genuine human error
- It is the driver’s assertion that the parking machine log records should show that a payment was made for a vehicle that does not appear in the ANPR records on that day.
- Mention made of PE v Heggie case. (Many forum contributors will know that this case was upheld in Heggie’s favour: Heggie mistyped the number plate and PE provided records that showed Mr Heggie had typed in number plate details that were different to the vehicle parked). Driver therefore believed PE would furnish similar information on the basis they had done so previously. Driver believes PE have been unreasonable in not providing this information, as this may have enabled the issue to have been resolved earlier without the need for PE’s litigious approach.
- The operator allowed the “erroneous” payment transaction to proceed without any warning to the driver. PE could easily have matched ANPR records versus payment machine details to detect discrepancies. It’s reasonable to assume that the payment was associated with the correct vehicle and that as the prescribed fee was offered by the driver and accepted by the payment machine that there was no breach of contract.
- Ambiguous terms & conditions and parking contract – with specific reference by the driver to the three different types of sign provided in the “Operator Evidence”. The driver feels there are strong grounds to challenge whether a valid contract was ever actually formed at law.
- PE’s operator evidence also has typos and human error, so it’s unfair to punish the driver’s possible human error when the claimant is equally culpable.
- On the balance of probabilities, the driver has paid the correct fee for a vehicle occupying the space that the vehicle in the ANPR photo occupied and PE has suffered no loss.
16. POPLA uphold PE’s case that the driver has exceeded the permitted free stay without making a payment. The response states that PE’s T&C’s in the car park clearly state that “motorists must enter their full correct vehicle registration when using the machine”. POPLA’s response continues “The whitelist lookup provided confirmed no valid payment was registered to the appellant’s vehicle. The PCN was issued correctly”. I note that in the motorist’s comments to the operator’s case file he has questioned the clarity of the signage. However, the motorists comments are to comment on the operator’s case file and not an opportunity to raise new grounds appeal and as such, I have not considered it.”
17. PE send driver “letter before County Court Claim” setting out additional costs for solicitor and court (totalling £75) that will be added to the £100 PCN. Much mention made of the Beavis case that PE won.
18. Driver does not respond to letter. Feels that evidence requested was not provided. Admits possible human error (though this can’t categorically be known as the evidence that only PE hold has not been furnished). Driver also feels POPLA’s investigation not thorough enough – it did not address all points raised by the driver and has deliberately dismissed some - and has failed to apply common sense in its judgement. The driver does not believe that it’s fair or moral – and indeed may be discriminatory (against anyone who is dyslexic for example) to demand that the correct registration be entered and that there be no grounds for appeal on the basis of genuine human error. Driver feels there was no point in trying to “negotiate” with PE now as PE are not contactable by phone and PE have already clearly ignored the driver’s requests for information and are unlikely to change their approach.
19. Driver receives County Court Business centre claim form for £175.
20. Driver calls the courtesy car company to see the key fob. The car was no longer on their fleet. However the courtesy car company did say that “to improve accuracy” they no longer have the handwritten key fobs that were in place at the time of the incident.
21. Driver calls BPA who tell the driver that their Code of practice does not govern payment machines!
22. Driver incensed that common sense would have resolved the situation without the need for time-wasting appeals and litigation. Driver feels POPLA process was just a game. The real issue here is what is moral, decent, fair and honest. Driver responds online to County Court with Acknowledgement of Service and stating that the driver will dispute the claim in full. A defence is due to be submitted within 14 days. The driver intends to act as Litigant in Person – given the small claim amount involved the driver currently feels it would be inappropriate to oil the legal wheels for a simple day-to-day matter that should have long since been easily resolved and where the driver has made every effort to do so.

Sorry – all this is ever so wordy, but I hope helpful.
Any comments and/or suggestions on a defence would be appreciated.

That's the exact point we're making though

The ruling helps you - it confirms that these charges ARE a penalty UNLESS the penalty rule is disengaged. In a p&d carpark there is NO justification fir charging this amount when parking was paid and a trivial error by the machine OR. The individual is made.

Thank you @nosferatu10001 for explaining your take on Beavis. Never having been in this situation I trawled the web prior to being on this forum and had come across this article: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/fighting-beavis-argument/

It states that "Post-Beavis, (Beavis) will be likely used by parking companies as a precedent to support their claim, either in an appeal response, or when making a court claim. As a defendent one would have to show how Beavis does not apply."

Clearly I had taken this at face value as my start point, and there is actually a subtlety in showing how Beavis DOES apply as opposed to how it doesn't!

You previously stated:


Regarding "as in other car parks", do you have any specifics/examples of car parks:
(i) Operated by PE where they tie ANPR to payment details? Do they advise the customer of any discrepancy at the point of the customer entering the reg details into the machine?
(ii) Similarly, for other operators.

Such specific evidence could be useful in supporting a defence - although, that said, I am aware that the BPA Code of Practice doesn't govern payment machines and hence there is no obligation/guidance for parking operators.

There's nothing useful on the ParkingCowboys website, IMHO.

You are far better on here or MSE, with proper, informed and up to date live support.



Highview have such a system at some Tesco stores now, where you scan your receipt in a machine and put in part of your VRN, and it then displays possible images of matching cars or close matches, showing the time of capture of the image when the cars arrived. You then touch the image that is your car, confirm it, and your stay is then authorised.

ParkingEye have no such system and only tie the machine data to the images for their own purposes of issuing PCNs like confetti, to any victim who might have suffered a typo (or even keypad failure, or glare on the screen and/or keypad, or very worn and faded keypad keys - none of which is the driver's fault).

There is no indication at any of PE's machines that a non-matching VRN has been entered. It's what they WANT people to fall foul of, believe us.

This one is similar to your experience, in that they had neglected to accuse her of the missing VRN in the first place (like your case):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...t-unsolved.html

Which is your local court and which car park was yours at?

Thank you @SchoolRunMum for your input. Very specific and very useful.

Thanks also for the link to the 'similar' case - I couldn't see a mention in it of whether the defendant, like us, had not kept the ticket or whether the defendant had a ticket with a blank VRN, or indeed with the correct or other VRN.
But a good outcome for the defendant and comeuppance for PE which I'm finding increasingly pleasing.

All we have is a whitelist matching ANPR to payment, but not vice versa, despite several requests of PE (including via POPLA)

So far I am dealing with the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, but will apply to our local court should it get that far.
The PE car park is in Amersham, Bucks.

Of course it's all a time-consuming game for a trivial matter - but as PE will find, I play games to win!

Thanks again.

The 'whitelist lookup' is wholly unhelpful and disingenuous, because more important is what they don't say. All they have done is deliberately looked up the EXACT VRN, knowing full well but withholding from you, what the issue really is, which could be a single digit error. Which could just as easily be caused by a non-functioning key on their machine, or sun glare on the keys and screen display, or faded keys, etc.

You made 'reasonable endeavours' to comply with the terms, so in all fairness in contract law (and fairness MUST be considered by the courts) you should not be penalised for any small detail outside of your control, especially when the Claimant is withholding that fact from you and withheld it from POPLA, too, with disingenuous information as a smoke screen.

'Reasonable endeavours' is a doctrine supported by case law:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...l-Limited-2000-



It automatically gets allocated to your local court, which sounds like it's in bargepole's 'catchment area', and he might know the car park.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 17:14

Thanks everyone for your views and experience so far.

Obviously we want to cover all relevant bases in the defence and will likely be focusing on the payment details allegedly being 'incorrect', howsoever caused and despite lack of evidence. But I've just noticed some possible anomalies in the PCN wording over time and in the wording in the claim, so I'm just wondering if anyone has any comments or if there are any implications...


In their original PCN to the vehicle owner, it states:
"The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and parking tariffs apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park agree to be bound"

"By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd".


In the PCN (same reference number) that was subsequently transferred to the car repair company the identical wording appears.


However, in the PCN (same reference number) that was subsequently transferred to the driver it states:
"The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, as a permit only / paid parking car park, what parking tariffs apply and the Parking Charge applicable without the appropriate permit or payment of the appropriate tariff when parking, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park agree to be bound"
"By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or parking without a valid permit, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd".

The concept of a "permit only / paid car park" has been introduced. The concept of "staying longer than permitted" has been dropped. Not saying if this is good or bad or adds clarity or changes anything or makes any material difference, but it just begs the question.



Then in the PCN Reminder to the driver, while the first paragraph is the same as in the PCN to the driver the second paragraph differs slightly:
"By either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or parking without a valid permit, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd".

The concept of a pay and display ticket has been introduced. Note that this isn't a pay and display car park (although the driver did put the ticket on the vehicle's dashboard out of habit).


Finally, Parking Eye state in their Claim to the driver that the driver parked "without purchasing a valid paid parking ticket". They go on to state the usual breach of terms/contract without being specific as to what exactly was breached. (although by a process of elimination and by implication, it is probably fair to assume that the payment reg details were "incorrect").


I appreciate that the wording differences are subtle, but there are differences. I'm left wondering why there are differences, if the differences matter, if the differences are significant and if they can be exploited in a defence?


1. I suppose the first counter argument is that only the driver's PCN is applicable here and so variations to the owner and repair company prior to it are irrelevant. Do you agree? If not, is there a basis on which to challenge the presence of differences over time and/or what they say?


2. Is there any basis on which to raise issues regarding the presence of differences in wording in the PCN and PCN Reminder? and/or what the wording states. again one could fairly logically dismiss the reminder in favour of the PCN but it just begs the question regarding differences.


For example - clearly, the car park is NOT pay and display and has no signage that states it is, yet the PCN Reminder states that either a valid pay and display ticket or valid permit are required. What exactly has the ticket machine issued? - is it a pay and display ticket? (I don't think so as no requirement to display). Is it merely a receipt for payment? Is it a permit? Is it a parking ticket? is it a valid parking ticket? (I note that "valid parking ticket" was the terminology used by PE when they asked the driver to provide evidence of having paid for sufficient parking time).

For info, a payment machine ticket from parking in the same car park prior to the incident has no explicit no wording on it to identify what it is exactly - it just contains a purchase time, date, fee paid, reg number and VAT number.

Then I ask - what does "valid" mean here exactly? I appreciate that a ticket could be valid at issue but then effectively become invalid because of an overstay. Is that a correct interpretation of valid? But could a machine ever issue an invalid ticket? That would seem nonsensical - but if the reg details in the payment machine were mistyped or misprocessed by the system is the ticket issued invalid at time of issue? And is this the point at which the contract is struck?

So if there isn't the concept of pay and display, then in the PCN Reminder a permit is the only option - and doesn't Permit, by definition, grant permission?

Furthermore, if the machine took payment and issued a ticket, then irrespective of any mismatch between reg details in the payment (and on the ticket) and reg details in the VRN then is it reasonable to assume that the "ticket" was valid?

I know this could all sound like semantics to some, but on such things is the outcome of arguments sometimes determined.

Views anyone?

You could have said that in about half the words, so I didnt just skim.

Yes if they claim it was overstay in one, then no permit in another, then any legal acition the PoC must specify WHAT the transgression aleged was. They can't just leave it open ended, they need to be specific. if the PoC state "no permit", yet the reason given initially was "overstay" then you cast doubt on the accuracy of their claim and thus its validity. The details must be consistent, otherwise it casts doubt - and remember in civil cases its only 51:49 needed, casting doubt rapidly drops down their side of the equation!

Frankly the strongest is, as ever, what was already identified. Reasonable effort to comply, a trvial error OR a machine error is not something worth this amount, therefore this REMAINS a penalty that is not recoverable under UK law.

This rumbles on - court hearing fast approaching.

Since my last post a lot has happened....

In my original post I omitted to say that the driver entered the regnum from the courtesy car key fob while paying at the payment machine and paid. This is stated in the driver's Defence. Her Defence also states that she has access to two other vehicles (and gave their registrations, but this was mentioned purely to explain why she was driving a courtesy car). The regnum of the courtesy car and the other vehicles bear no resemblance to each other.

In the parking operator's paperwork submitted in advance of the Court Hearing - over a year after the parking event/breach of contract - the parking operator provided a list of regnums (redacted) from the payment machine (allegedly). One of these (shown in full) is almost identical to one of the vehicles the driver has access to! Curiously though, there's a zero where there should be an 'O'! Other details on the payment record, e,g, payment date, time, duration, amount paid etc tie up with the ticket she bought (but no longer has).

Driver repeats they used the key fob to enter the reg (it was a courtesy car and she didn't know the reg hence use of key fob). Regnum may have been mistyped but if so would be an almost exact match for the courtesy car regnum.

Has anyone come across this sort of thing before and/or can offer any suggestions on how to tackle this in court?

Have read here.

A transposed zero and O should not be pursued imho...

This is less than clear. Is the VRN on the machine log the VRN of the hire vehicle in question, as copied from the key fob (notwithstanding the O or 0 error), or is it from another vehicle that the driver had access to?

Although the IPC has told its members not to enforce O v 0 errors, the BPA has never given any instructions regarding trivial mistypes

As a result, POPLA always regards them as a breach of terms and conditions

If ParkingEye stresses the POPLA decision, make clear that POPLA is only interested in whether the Parking Notice was issued correctly, not whether the payment is actually owed

In my view, the requirement to issue the full registration is an unfair contract term
It has no purpose other than to multiply the possibility of a mistake

The last three letters of the registration have more than 15 000 combinations, more than enough to identify the car in any normal car park
Even retail parks like Bluewater, Meadowhall and Trafford Centre only have 12 - 13 000 spaces

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 10:29

Here's the specifics, but obviously the regnums quoted below are not the actual ones but are provided to aid understanding....


Let's say that one of the cars the driver has access to is J6 BOG. The driver did NOT park this car that day, it was in the garage being repaired. She was driving a courtesy car the garage gave her.
Let's say the VRM of the courtesy car she was driving was LD55 JEN.


PE have provided what they claim is parking machine data for the date in question for J6 B0G, i.e. with a zero between the B and the G.

So, in short, PE are saying that LD55 JEN was captured on camera but that the driver typed in J6 B0G. LD55 JEN appears in the ANPR data, while J6 B0G appears in the payment machine data. Hence the PCN. In other words PE are saying that at the payment machine the driver typed in her own vehicle VRM and got it wrong, despite the driver entering the courtesy car VRM from the keyfob of the courtesy car LD55 JEN.

It's ludicrous! - but nothing astounds me regarding PE.

I hope that clarifies matters. Any help appreciated.

Blimey. No wonder I didn't understand first time round! In which case, if the driver definitely entered the number on the key fob, how the heck did the VRN of the car being repaired get into the logs? Either PE are manipulating the logs (which wouldn't surprise me) or the driver actually entered that number (albeit incorrectly) of the car in garage by mistake. Either way is is pretty compelling evidence that the driver actually paid!

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 16:16

This indeed is the question *we* have been asking, especially since the driver definitely transcribed from the courtesy car keyfob.

Unfortunately - when a judge is faced with weighing up whether it was 'manipulation' or a typo by the driver (albeit a bizarre possibility logically that a driver transcribing from a key fob would enter a regnum that bears no resemblance to whats on the fob but instead enters their own familiar reg and inputs a 0 instead of an O) then it's still always easier to 'believe' the typo option. (The reality is that no-one wants to contemplate the possibility of fraud when human error offers an easier explanation)

Net result: driver falls foul of the term that she must enter her full correct registration number and hence is liable for the PCN.

It sucks.

We even asked for CCTV to show the driver using the key fob at the payment machine, but none is available. We were told by PE that PE don't use CCTV in any of their car parks - which seems odd given that PE are an ANPR/camera user - and it left us wondering how, in a unmanned car park, PE identify and enforce offences such as parking across marked bays, or on hatched lines, or using a disabled spot without a blue badge.


p.s. The parking machine keypad has a 0 and an O, but these aren't close to each other physically, unlike on a QWERTY keypad if you get my drift?...

They don't.

Some sites do use boots on the ground or the company itself can issue the tickets for such heinous crimes.

The ANPR camera is a different beastie. It purely focuses on number plates.

I agree re unfair contract term and intend to raise same in Court. @Redivi - I'd appreciate anything specific you can add to support your view. In our case the signage stated "Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine"

Yes but it is not reasonable to penalise the driver for either a faulty keypad (e.g. stinking keys) or a simple error such as a O instead of 0 when the the PPC can easily identify the car by the first part of the VRN.

I agree regarding things outside the drivers control, and typos such as 0 vs O or obvious mistype of a character or digit - but the scenario here is that what was entered bears no resemblance to what PE hold.

Just been in Court and lost to ParkingEye. PE presented fake data and the judge fell for it.

Now they've been 'successful', I can see PE using the same tactics again with other motorists - so I'll remain on the forums to help others as best I can.

We told the truth so although we won't get the 18 months back, at least our conscience is clear. I feel sorry that there are people around (at PE) who think it's ok to tell lies at the expense of others.

Thanks to everyone on here who helped with suggestions and input.