Frequently Asked Questions
Further evidence, that ParkingEye’s Parking Charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley , Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller , Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas  and, in a case tested at High Court (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ).
Case law, which has been tested in court, such as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest  proves particularly useful in respect to the creation of a contract with the driver. This is again reiterated in Section 7.1 of the Department of Transport’s guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This provides strong evidence that if the signage and terms and conditions are sufficient it will be considered that the driver has entered into a contract to park on the land.
A charge of £85 was found to be reasonable and justifiable in ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley .
Assessors at POPLA determine appeals from those who have been issued with parking charge notices, in respect of vehicles parked on private land. The motorist must first have made their case (‘representations’) to the operator who issued the parking charge notice and have had their representations rejected.
POPLA is independent of all parties to appeals, including the operator and the British Parking Association, as are the Assessors who make the determinations.
The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.
Please click here to pay or alternatively write to: PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT