Free Parking Fine Appeal Template

PARKING FINE APPEAL

Formal Appeal — Private Parking Charge  ·  21 March 2026

This formal appeal is made on 21 March 2026 by James Henderson ("the Appellant") and addressed to ParkingEye Ltd ("the Issuing Party"). The Appellant formally contests the parking charge identified below and requests its cancellation.

PCN reference: PE-2026-0045213
Date of alleged contravention: 5 March 2026 at 14:35
Date notice served on Appellant: 12 March 2026
Location: Tesco Extra, Trafford Park, Manchester
Vehicle registration: AB12 CDE
Alleged contravention: Exceeded maximum stay of 2 hours
Charge amount demanded: £100.00
Operator Code of Practice: British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice

I dispute this charge on the grounds that the signage at the car park was inadequate and did not clearly display the parking terms and conditions. The signs were obscured by foliage and not visible on entry or from the parking bay I occupied. I also reasonably believed I was within the grace period on exit.

A private parking charge notice is not a fine issued under any statute. It is an invoice founded on an alleged contract between the land owner (acting through their agent, the operator) and the driver, as confirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Its validity therefore turns on ordinary principles of contract law and on compliance with the consumer-protection regime, in particular the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness of terms, Part 2) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

The Appellant disputes that any enforceable contract was formed, or alternatively that it was breached, and requires the operator to produce evidence of: (a) the land owner's written authority to issue and pursue charges; (b) the full contractual terms relied upon; (c) the signage present on the date in question, dimensions, position and lighting; and (d) full compliance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice binding on the operator.

For the reasons set out in this letter, the Appellant requests that the charge of £100.00 be cancelled immediately and any record of the alleged contravention expunged. If the charge is not cancelled, the Appellant will exercise the right to refer the matter to the independent appeals service applicable to the operator (POPLA for BPA members; IAS for IPC members) and, if necessary, robustly defend any county court claim and seek costs in accordance with CPR Part 27.14(2)(g).

On entering the car park on 5 March 2026 the main entrance sign was obscured by an overgrown hedge. No signs were visible from the parking space I used. I returned on 7 March 2026 and took photographs, which confirm the signage was not clearly visible from the drive or the bay. Under the BPA Code of Practice signs must be prominent, well lit, and legible from all directions of approach — this test was not met.

Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice (or IPC Code, as applicable) and the Supreme Court in Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at [100]–[108], terms must be "prominent" and brought to the consumer's attention. Inadequate signage renders the alleged contract unincorporated, and any purported term unfair and unenforceable under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The following evidence is enclosed in support of this appeal:

1. Photographs of car park signage (taken 7 March 2026)
2. Photograph showing obscured entrance sign
3. Photograph of the bay used relative to the nearest lit sign
4. Copy of the Notice to Keeper received
5. Copy of pay-and-display receipt from a neighbouring site (comparator)

Further documentary and photographic evidence may be produced on request or at any subsequent hearing.

Ms Sarah Williams (colleague) was present throughout and will provide a signed statement confirming the condition and visibility of the signage on the date in question.

A signed witness statement in compliance with CPR Part 22 can be provided if the matter proceeds to a hearing.

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a private parking operator may only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper if each of the strict procedural requirements in paragraphs 8 or 9 is met. These include:

(a) the notice to keeper being given to the keeper within the required period (14 days where a notice to driver has been given under para 7; otherwise compliance with para 9 is required);
(b) the notice containing all of the prescribed information in paragraph 9(2), including an invitation to pay or to identify the driver, and the warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f);
(c) the operator being either the creditor or authorised by the creditor (para 2); and
(d) adequate signage displaying the terms at the time of the event (para 1(1)).

Unless the operator provides evidence that each of these conditions was satisfied, keeper liability cannot be established and the charge must be cancelled. The operator's attention is drawn to Combined Parking Solutions v AI Elgar (2015) and the line of district-judge decisions on strict PoFA compliance.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held (at [28]–[32] and [99]) that a parking charge will only escape the penalties doctrine and the unfair-terms regime where (i) the operator has a legitimate interest in deterring overstayers that extends beyond mere compensation, and (ii) the charge is not extravagant or unconscionable when measured against that interest. The Appellant submits that, on the facts of the present case, no such legitimate interest can be shown, alternatively that the charge of £100.00 is extravagant and out of all proportion to any such interest. The charge accordingly fails the Beavis test and is unenforceable both at common law (penalty) and under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (unfair term).

Any term purporting to bind the Appellant must satisfy the requirements of Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In particular:

(a) Section 62 renders unfair terms non-binding on the consumer;
(b) Section 64 requires price and subject-matter terms to be transparent and prominent;
(c) Schedule 2, paragraph 6 lists "requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation" as an example of a potentially unfair term.

The charge is a "disproportionately high sum" within the meaning of Schedule 2(6) and is not transparent or prominent within the meaning of section 64. The term is accordingly non-binding on the Appellant under section 62(1).

The Appellant requires strict proof that, on the date of the alleged contravention, the operator held a valid written contract with the relevant land owner authorising it to (a) make contractual offers to motorists, (b) pursue charges, and (c) bring county court proceedings in its own name. Pursuant to the current BPA / IPC Codes of Practice, operators are required to hold such authority on file. A redacted copy of the operator-land owner contract is requested. Absent such proof, the operator has no standing to issue or enforce the charge and the matter must be cancelled.

On 1 October 2024 the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community jointly adopted a Single Industry Code of Practice for private parking operators. The Single Code adopted many of the standards from the (now-withdrawn) statutory Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Code while the government holds the statutory code in reserve (the original code was withdrawn in April 2023 following litigation by private operators; a government consultation ran July-September 2025 and a replacement code is expected in 2026). Under the Single Industry Code the operator must (i) display prominent, well-lit and legible signage at all points of entry and within the parking area, (ii) allow a minimum 10-minute consideration period on entry and a minimum 10-minute grace period before enforcement, (iii) issue a notice to keeper compliant with paragraphs 8-9 of Schedule 4 to PoFA 2012, and (iv) operate a transparent, accessible appeals process. The Appellant requires the operator to confirm in writing its compliance with each of these standards on the date in question and to produce signage photographs taken within 30 days of that date.

The Appellant draws the operator's attention to section 226 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (in active enforcement by the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards from 6 April 2025), which makes it a civil and (in serious cases) criminal offence to give false or misleading information to a consumer about their rights or liabilities — including misrepresenting the consequences of non-payment, the appeals process, the operator's legal standing or the basis of the charge. Any operator correspondence threatening non-existent consequences, mischaracterising the charge as a "fine" or "penalty" rather than an alleged contractual sum, or suggesting that ignoring the appeal will result in automatic county court judgment, constitutes potentially misleading information within the meaning of s.226 DMCC Act 2024 and may be reported to the CMA, local trading standards and the operator's Accredited Trade Association.

The operator obtained the Appellant's personal data (name and address) from the DVLA under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) service, which requires the operator to satisfy each request with a reasonable cause and to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 as amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (SI 2026/82 in force 5 February 2026) and the UK GDPR. The Appellant requires the operator to confirm: (a) the Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR legitimate-interests assessment relied on for the KADOE request and any subsequent processing; (b) the retention period for the Appellant's data and the ANPR images relied on; (c) compliance with the data-minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c); and (d) the Appellant's right of access under Article 15 (a Subject Access Request may follow if this appeal is rejected). Where the operator cannot evidence a lawful KADOE basis or appropriate data handling, the appeal must be allowed and any record of the Appellant's data deleted.

I note that no Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle and that the Notice to Keeper did not include the warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in the prescribed form.

This appeal is made under the laws of England and Wales. In the event of rejection, the Appellant will appeal to POPLA (for BPA-accredited operators) or the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) (for IPC-accredited operators), and will contest any county court proceedings relying inter alia on CPR Part 27 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 2. The Appellant reserves the right to refer any breach of the BPA + IPC Single Industry Code of Practice (in force 1 October 2024) to the relevant Accredited Trade Association, and any misleading-information offence to the Competition and Markets Authority or local trading standards under s.226 of the DMCC Act 2024. Note: the statutory Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Code was withdrawn in April 2023 following operator litigation; the government consulted July-September 2025 on a replacement code expected in 2026, at which point further statutory rights will be available.