Parking on Parking Eye sights can be fun especially because they don’t include their email address in their Parking Charge Notices making them invalid [BPA code of conduct]. They didn’t even contest mine when I pointed it out.
How many others have been invalid?
Thanks for this Andy. Looking at the latest version of BPA Code of Practice (version 5) the relevant passage is:
29 Issuing parking charge notices
29.1 The parking charge notice must contain at least
the following information, whatever the method of
enforcement and how it is sent or delivered:
n) all the methods by which drivers may challenge the
parking charge notice, including at least an email and
a postal address. Operators are encouraged to also
provide an or website address that can be used
So, yes, I agree if the PCN does not include an email address, it does not fulfil the BPA’s requirement for a Parking Charge Notice. If I was appealing, I would use this as part of a layered appeal – i.e. cite it, but would not solely rely upon it. If a ticket like this was to go to county court a judge may accept it, or they may decide it is not materially relevant to whether you broke the parking rules or not.
But it’s a good spot and it demonstrates exactly why you should review the BPA code of practice. The size of ParkingEye means it is more able to ensure compliance compared to some of the one man band operators out there. I would imagine some of them are littered with errors like this.
Thanks for writing in!