See What You'll Get

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally appeal the above Parking Charge Notice issued on 18 February 2026 at Riverside Retail Park, Manchester, for an alleged contravention on 17 February 2026 at 14:32. I dispute this charge on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate Signage

Pursuant to Section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, all parking terms must be clearly and prominently displayed. The signage at the location was inadequate in the following respects:

• The main entry sign was obscured by vegetation, making it impossible to read the restrictions while entering the car park
• Bay-specific signage was severely faded and weathered, failing the BPA Code Section 13.2 requirement for maintained visibility
• No secondary signage was present to reinforce the parking conditions, contrary to industry best practice

The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 acknowledged that charges must be transparent and clearly communicated. In this instance, the inadequate signage meant I could not have been reasonably aware of the restrictions.

2. Absence of Grace Period

Your notice indicates my vehicle remained in the car park for 2 hours and 7 minutes, exceeding the maximum stay by 7 minutes. BPA Code of Practice Section 19.4 and IPC Code Section 15.3 both require operators to allow a minimum 10-minute grace period before issuing charges.

The rationale for this requirement, as set out in the codes, is to account for reasonable delays in departing (e.g., locating vehicle, traffic congestion at exit barriers, or waiting for pedestrians). A 7-minute overstay falls well within the tolerance expected of compliant operators and should not have triggered a charge.

3. Keeper Liability Requirements

Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to Keeper must be issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention and must include specific prescribed information. I note the following defects in your notice:

• The notice does not clearly specify which paragraph of Schedule 4 is being relied upon
• No evidence of signage compliance (photographs) was included as required by the BPA Code

4. Disproportionate Charge

The charge of £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) is disproportionate to any loss suffered by the operator. ParkingEye v Beavis established that parking charges must reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss or serve a legitimate interest in traffic management. For a 7-minute overstay in an off-peak period with ample vacant spaces, this charge cannot be justified.

Summary

In light of the above, I request that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately. The inadequate signage, absence of a mandated grace period, and disproportionate charge amount all render this notice invalid. I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and I did not wilfully breach any clearly communicated parking restriction.

Should you reject this appeal, I will escalate the matter to POPLA (the independent appeals service) or the relevant adjudication body, citing the grounds set out above. I am prepared to present the photographic evidence and documentation referenced in this letter.

I await your response within 14 days. Please confirm cancellation of this charge in writing.