Rumours of our demise are premature

We have recently had brought to our attention a post on MoneySaving Expert.

This is not, in fact the case, and we continue to trade, supporting customers from their first PCN through to the courtroom door and sometimes beyond.

In the past few weeks, our staff have been involved in well-reported court cases in Blackwood, Clerkenwell, and elsewhere, and we continue to support the British Motorist Protection Association. We are about to submit our second year’s accounts, which will show an increase in turnover of more than 20% year on year, and this despite the judgment in ParkingEye and Beavis.

One of the comments in the thread listed is cogent:

I remain amazed at the number of so-called complainants who seem to believe that running to this forum to bleat is both a reasonable and measured way of solving a simple problem when the effort they expend in doing so would have written several letters to PPA direct.

One has to ask whether all of these individuals were genuinely motivated (in that they have actually suffered poor service) or for whatever reason are far more interested in simply discrediting PPA? Let’s face it, there are plenty of PPC’s who would be glad to see PPA losing business just for starters.

Private Parking Appeals continues to trade, and continues to win cases. Indeed, we have recently acquired the IP of a fourth appeals company, and will soon be rolling out additional services. As ever, however, we do not trade on Social Media or forums, and operators of such services permitting defamatory posts would be well advised to apply more stringent moderation.  Our complaints procedure is fully compliant with the requirements of law, and, although we do receive some complaints, we have never been in a position where a customer has had to refer a complaint to ADR.

We’d also like to thank the moderators of Pepipoo for their support in pointing out that online forums are not the appropriate place for customers to air their complaints, and hope the moderators of MSE will follow suit.

Private Parking Appeals – we do exactly what it says in the name.

Have you had a Debt Letter or a Claim from MIL Collections

The Parking Prankster has reported a massive Data Breach involving MIL Collections and a number of parking companies. The DVLA has known about this since at least October 2015.

Private Parking Appeals has an unrivalled success rate in dealing with MIL Claims, and in all but one case our staff and our Advocacy team has successfully had the case thrown out, often with costs against MIL; in some cases we have been able to get the case thrown out even before it reached a courtroom.

As a result, we can claim to be the experts in dealing with MIL Collections.

If you have had a claim made against you by MIL Collections since October 2015, even if you have paid their ridiculous demand, then you may well have a claim against them, and the parking company involved, for a DPA breach.

Please contact us using our Legal enquiry page, and we will be happy to assist you with your claim, not only for the sum you paid MIL but also for up to £750 for the Data Breach. Our charge for this – the same as if we assisting you with the defence of a claim, £49.


Private Parking Appeals – even when you’ve already paid, we are Just the Ticket ™

Bank Holidays? What are they?

As the Festive Season approaches again, I am reminded of our first year of business – we started trading just before Christmas 2014.

We made a decision, right back at the start of business, that we would be open every day of the year, able to handle customer issues and parking tickets on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, New Years Day and all of the lesser Bank Holidays. We chose to do this for a simple reason – we had already seen that the Parking Companies don’t take these holidays.

Last year, I manned the phoned on 25 December, before driving across the way to Dundee to see my family later that afternoon. Despite it being Christmas Day, I dealt with three phone calls from concerned customers. Later on, we received a number of applications from Customers who had either been parked on, or had been issued tickets with a date of, 25 December 2015, including ParkingEye, Smart Parking, Excel Parking, Vehicle Control Services, Highview, Horizon, Athena ANPR and others.

Some of these were windscreen tickets – can you imagine how much you would have to resemble Ebenezer Scrooge to issue a ticket at this time of year?

And so it is again this year – with the Christmas Break encompassing a weekend, there are only three “working days” in the next ten calendar days, and we are open for every calender day. However, unlike me, our case handlers may well be slightly slower to respond to emails, as they are entitled to time off for their families.

We would like to thank you all for your business over the last year, and your patience and co-operation during this season, and wish you all the greetings of the Season, and a happy, and PCN-free New Year.

Does UKPC have authority to ticket on its sites?

For the third time recently, John Wilkie (our Head of Legal) has come back from court astonished and astounded at the evidence which UK Parking Control has sought to bring before the court.

UKPC has a habit, in our experience, of only bringing multiple-ticket cases to court. Because of the nature of their business, these are invariably related to Residential Parking, where a management company bring UKPC in to stop non-residents parking. This works within 6-8 weeks, after which the Parking Company isn’t getting any money, so it has to start ticketing residents for the slightest infringement… such as, and these are all real examples:-

  • Not displaying a permit to park in your own bay. This is invidious, and UKPC has been taken to court for tresspass before where this has occurred
  •  Not parking completely in a marked bay – having a wheel on the line, for example, or being too long for the bay without touching the wall.
  • Not displaying a valid “Vehicle Excise Licence” – which hasn’t been possible for some time now.
  • Sticking the PCN OVER the permit, so that the permit cannot be seen in their evidence.
  • Not displaying a Blue Badge – the Blue Badge scheme does not apply to Private Land.
  • Faking Photographs to show a vehicle has been on site, for far longer than is the case. UKPC lost access to the DVLA database when caught doing this.
  • Changing the look of a permit for a scheme, without supplying the landowner with new permits to distribute.

UKPC will often issue many tickets to a vehicle, then sue the Keeper for up to 99 tickets at once. Inevitably, such cases arrive at our doorstep, and, as it’s a single claim we do only charge a single fee to deal with it, making our service very competitive.

And in many cases like this, UKPC will say that they are authorised by the landowner to operate on the land. And, again and again, our legal researchers find that this is not the case. And when we demonstrate this to the court, the UKPC advocate tries to argue that they would not have put up many signs, and issued many tickets without someone complaining if they were not allowed to be there. The counter to this argument is that “if I try to sell Buckingham Palace, it doesn’t need a District Judge to tell me that I can’t do that.”

Some of our more recent successes in this type of case have included Mr M in Worcester, another Mr M in Edmonton, Mr A in Bury (a doctor who was parked dealing with patients in extremis) and today’s case, Mr M (a different one) in Huddersfield, where the judge examined the contract and decided there was no evidence of a Chain of Authority from the Landowner to the Parking Company. In this case, the contract was with a non-existent Management Company, in other cases it has been entirely absent.

Without authority to operate on the land, a parking company doing so is committing fraud, breaching the BPA and IPC Code of Practice, and has no right to Keeper Details or to seek to invoke Keeper Liability. Indeed, without authority to operate, the company cannot even pursue the driver for a Parking Charge.

Private Parking Appeals is now very wise to claims like these, and have both experience and persuasive case law dealing with such circumstances. Unlike the Solicitors Firms who take these cases on and regularly lose for their clients, We have a record of wins against these claims, and are the real experts in dealing with such matters.


Making Friends and Influencing People

Private Parking Appeals has always considered itself to have the same aim as the British Parking Association – to improve standards in private parking.

While we do this in different ways, we do share the view that there must be one Code of Practice, one enforcing body, one consistent appeals process and a single Independent Appeals Service. We also feel that each time we are able to have a ticket cancelled, this demonstrates non-compliance by the company, and this needs to be resolved by the company, not simply brushed under the carpet.

Many parking companies have a good relationship with us – which is not to say that we are in their pocket or they in ours. Our correspondence about parking charges and appeals is often robust to the point of offence, but when it comes to the relationships between the people involved, we can sit and discuss things as professionals and without rancour, for the most part.

It is pleasing to confirm that this professional courtesy also extends, for the most part, to the Solicitors and Representatives our Lay Representatives meet at court. However, as with any industry, there are a few who are entirely unprofessional in their dealings with us. Private Parking Appeals does not intend to Name and Shame these companies, and individuals, however, if you were to follow the Parking Prankster blog, it would not be difficult for you to draw your own conclusions.

As a result both of the professionalism of the majority, and the conduct of the minority, Private Parking Appeals has therefore decided to apply for membership of the BPA. This will provide us with further respect within the industry, and essentially a louder voice – think of it as joining a union. To coin a phrase, it is better to be inside the tent…

On a final point, however, referring again to those who are less professional, please note that all telephone calls made to, from or by Private Parking Appeals may be recorded for audit and legal purposes and relied upon in court.

Devere Parking Services Ltd

Devere Parking Services operate out of Bournemouth at:

Office 123, 89 Commercial Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH2 5RR


Company registration no:  7706655

Registered office Unit 3 Vista Place, Coy Pond Business Park, Poole, Dorset, BH12 1JY

Company director and sole shareholder:  Ms Fenella Landau

Devere Parking Services have been around for a number of years but have only been trading as a limited company since 2011.  Unlike many parking companies Devere does not have a website.

They are currently members of the IPC, having found the BPA POPLA system too fair, as disclosed in court. As a result, there is very little chance of winning an appeal at first or second stage, although Devere have been known to cancel a charge rather than “waste time” on an appeal. It has been said that when Devere left the BPA and joined the IPC, this raised the quality of the membership of both organisations.

It is well known that Devere have tried several tactics in the past to avoid issuing a POPLA code when appeals have been made. Appeals have been ignored when made as the registered keeper – going straight to debt recovery stage instead.

It has, however, been proven in court that some of Devere Parking Services contracts are not in order and the company and its staff can get very threatening when this is challenged. Fortunately, as this has now been proven in court at least at some locations that Devere monitors, their unlawful charges on these sites will never come to court.

Devere prefer to operate in the Bournemouth area.    They particularly like to issue parking tickets/ parking charge notices where people live and their main other point of operation is at Castlepoint.

Like many parking companies, Devere particularly target vulnerable people and those covered by the Equality Act. They have been known to hold landowners to ransom, failing to issue new permits until employees have paid all outstanding chrges.

Our Appeals handlers have a 100% record in cancellation of parking tickets and several happy clients were pleased when the parking charge was cancelled after the first appeal.

So if you have a parking charge notice from Devere – contact us as soon as possible – let us take the stress and worry and handle the appeal for you.





ParkingEye Limited are the largest and most notorious of all the private parking companies – they were bought out by Capita Plc in October 2013 for a staggering £57 million.

Can ParkingEye Fine You?

It is a common misconception that parking charges or parking tickets issued on private land are fines. This is a view held by both the general public and the press alike.  This is indeed partially due to the manner in which private parking charge notices are packaged and letters sent with the subliminal message that they carry an air of authority akin to Penalty Charge Notices.

Although these are not Parking Fines, ParkingEye will take you to court for any unpaid parking charge notice (PCN).   They currently issue hundreds of county court claims to motorists every week who have ignored ParkingEye tickets.

How do ParkingEye operate?

ParkingEye predominately operate by using ANPR cameras to record vehicles entering and leaving any one particular site – data is then supposed to be cross referenced for any alleged breaches of terms of parking on site.

ParkingEye then apply to the DVLA for the Registered Keeper details and send a postal parking charge notice – also known as a PCN for allegedly breaching the terms of parking.

ParkingEye also have a small number of sites they manage with traditional parking attendant on site. A manual parking ticket (parking charge notice – PCN) is then affixed to the car – again for any purported breaches of terms.   This can be for fastidious reasons like a wheel slightly outside a marked parking bay at a retail park.

Where does ParkingEye operate?

ParkingEye have operations up and down the country:

Supermarkets including Aldi  and  Morrisons

Welcome Break Motorway service stations


Leisure/Tourist Car Parks including:

Tower Road – Newquay

Watergate Bay – Newquay

Aire Street Leeds –  a small stand alone pay and display car park

Town Quay and LeisureWorld – Southampton


Numerous Retail Parks including:

  • Rheidol Retail Park – Aberystwyth
  • Eastgate Shopping Centre – Bristol
  • Riverside Retail Park – Chelmsford, site of the Beavis parking charge
  • Tower Road Retail Park
  • Telford Bridge
  • Beehive Centre – Cambridge
  • Rishworth Retail Park – Dewsbury
  • Roaring Meg – Stevenage
  • Watford Arches
  • Two Saints Retail Park – Ormskirk
  • Fast Food Chains incl some McDonalds
  • Hotels
  • Holiday Inn / Park Inn Express
  • Marriott Hotel – eg Kensington London
  • Ramada
  • Britannia hotels eg at Gatwick
  • By Airports – eg Eurogarages – Starbucks/KFC – Heathrow


  • Hospitals and Health Care Trusts including:
  • Burton Hospital
  • Coventry Health Centre
  • Loxford Polytechnic surgery
  • The Royal Free Hospital

Appealing a ParkingEye PCN?

There is a two-stage appeals process to follow – an initial appeal to ParkingEye, who will either cancel at this stage – a great many of our customers are delighted when the first stage appeal is upheld and the parking charge (PCN) is cancelled.

ParkingEye are members of the British Parking Association – these members all offer POPLA – Parking on Private Land Appeals, as the second stage of the appeals process.


When can Private Parking Appeals Assist?

At Any Time – we can help you with ParkingEye PCNs!


Our Appeals handlers have extensive knowledge in this field and all appeals are made on legal aspects.  We have helped nearly a thousand ParkingEye customers get their tickets cancelled.

It doesn’t matter where you have received the parking charge (parking ticket) or the reason – whether at a hospital, retail park or motorway service station or hotel – we can help.

Have you just received a ParkingEye PCN?

Then fill out your details now on our Appeal now page and let us deal with both stages of appealing ParkingEye PCNs for you. Our service saves the motorist stress time and worry by removing any uncertainty that the appeal will not be successful.  For a low fixed cost of £19 (vat inclusive) we offer and outstanding service and have a very high success rate at the end of the appeals stages.   We also offer support beyond that stage and our team can often effect cancellation of your PCN  via alternative methods.

Have you already appealed and need help with POPLA?

Again we can help – simply fill out your details and supply the POPLA code and let us do the rest for you.  Our low cost of £19 is the same for whether we appeal both stages or just for POPLA, and we have a better than 95% success rate at POPLA appeals, including ground breaking judgments at Town Quay, LeisureWorld and Riverside Retail Park.

Don’t delay and miss the appeal time frame as the POPLA code is time restrictive and only valid once – fill out your details on our appeal now page:

We will require copies of the parking charge, your appeal and of course the POPLA code, and then let the experts handle this for you!

Have you ignored a ParkingEye PCN?

If you have been following old advice and ignored the parking charge notice / ticket and subsequent letters – then don’t worry, Private Parking Appeals Ltd can still assist you with your PCN.  You must act quickly however, as ParkingEye will and do sue motorists who have ignored ParkingEye PCNs and issue hundreds or thousands of either letter before county court claims or actual court claim forms themselves.

Are you being chased by a Debt Collector for unpaid ParkingEye PCNs?

ParkingEye frequently use a debt collector such as Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) / Zenith to pursue and harass motorists into paying.  Again our service rivals no other and Private Parking Appeals Ltd has extensive knowledge regarding this and dealing with debt collectors.  We can help you – once again fill out your details on our appeal now form and one of our dedicated team will be in touch.  We will require the latest letter from the debt collector.

Have you received a Letter before County Court Claim?

We are in the unique position to still be able to assist you at this very late stage.  Our unique service includes dealing with letter before county court claims – written by our experienced appeals handlers.  We have had several parking charges cancelled at this stage.  However, do not delay if you have one of these letters as you only have 14 days to respond – fill out your details on our legal page and let us help you:


Received a County Court Claim Form?

 Then no need to panic!

Once again Private Parking Appeals can assist you in this matter.  We are the only company able to assist you in this matter and we offer a unique and personalised County Court Claim defence writing service for any victim of ParkingEye.

Our fees for constructing these defences are simple, clear and fixed as per our legal page for a total of £49.00 (including VAT).

This fee can be paid in two stages:

The first payment of £19.00 (including VAT) will include the suggested initial defence.  We also have a series of court procedure guides for our clients and can assist with any ADR or Small Claims Mediation. Often ParkingEye will settle for as little as £50.

Should the claim proceed to a hearing at your local court, we will deal with your witness statement and skeleton court argument for the second part of our fee, £30.00.

Please note we are unable to offer any qualified legal advice in relation to court claims and our defences are written by non-legally qualified personnel.   However, our team of parking company court claim handlers are experienced in dealing with court claims and their track record in such matters is impressive.   We offer no guarantee to the outcome of any court claim should you use our services however our successes are often featured in the public domain such as Parking Pranksters blog.




We will require copy of the court claim form.

All services are subject to our terms and conditions.






Private Parking Appeals and associated businesses

What an interesting thing has happened…

As you may be aware, Private Parking Appeals has acquired the business names, and Intellectual Property of two other appeals companies. These are Parking Ticket Appeals, and Appeal Parking Tickets. Internally, we call these the PTAS businesses.

As a result, if you try to contact either company by email, you will receive an automatic reply explaining that we have acquired the business names, but not the companies, and that you should contact Private Parking Appeals instead.

We are aware that several individuals in both the East Midlands and South Yorkshire, and on the South Coast, have been contacting motorists and claiming to be either from PPA or the PTAS businesses, offering to help with court claims and attend court, and often charging fees, payable directly to them, for doing so. Private Parking Appeals does not solicit for business in this way. On the rare occasion when a Staff member acts as a Lay Representative, s/he will be formally introduced by the company, and will make clear that s/he must act as an individual for that purpose.

Private Parking Appeals only trades from this website. We have referral partners, such as Parking Cowboys and Parking Prankster, but all trading comes via our website and payment links through Barclays Pingit and Selz.

We do not have “advisers” at court, we do not have contractors using Gmail or other throwaway accounts, and we do not currently post on any forums. We have a company Twitter account, but this is not used for trading. Occasionally, a member of the PPA court team may officially attend court for a large case, as an observer. However, we only ever offer the legal services of the company as a “Fee-Charging McKensie Friend” and on the basis of our published terms and conditions.

As a result, and to summarise, if you are contacted by any person claiming to be from Private Parking Appeals, Parking Ticket Appeals or Appeal Parking Tickets, and this email has not come from a Private Parking Appeals email address, then this is not associated with us.

If you meet a person at court who you are not expecting and that person claims to be a PTAS business staff member, they are not. Please notify the court staff of this immediately and let us know as soon as possible by email.

Likewise if someone claiming to be from PPA contacts you from a non-PPA address, or turns up for a hearing when you were not expecting them, please let us know about this.

Private Parking Appeals will not tolerate individuals falsely trying to associate themselves with our business, or misrepresenting themselves as being part of our company, and we will seek the strongest penalties in law against anyone seeking to do so.

Private Parking Appeals and MoneySavingExpert

Private Parking Appeals started when six friends from the Forums decided to offer our help and expertise outside those limited discussions, and offer a service to the wider public.

As it says elsewhere in this website, everything we do, it is possible for an individual to do for themselves with resources that are freely available on sites like pepipoo, the BMPA, the Consumer Action Group. Legal Beagles and similar. And we have continued to offer our support and help to members of these forums, often taking on important cases without charge for the benefit of consumers in general. Indeed our court guides are freely available via the BMPA and similar.

Unfortunately, some web forums cannot accept this. MoneySavingExpert (MSE) is a case in point.

During 2014 and 2015, an operator of another Parking Appeals Company pursued one of our contractors in a very unpleasant manner. This was reported by the Parking Prankster after the person concerned was convicted of stalking. The stalking has not, unfortunately, stopped, and further action is likely. However, during this period, the stalker was utilising the MSE forums to pursue his vendetta.

When the victim complained of this, and finally snapped, MSE, rather than banning the stalker, instead banned the victim. This left the stalker free to carry on smearing the victim across the MSE forums. The victim has also stated openly that MSE failed to assist the police with their investigations.

Our own Head of Legal, John Wilkie, was also banned from the MSE forums, with no explanation, prior to ParkEx last year. And now, our CEO, Carol Sole, has also been banned, apparently for self-promotion, while MSE is still allowing the stalker to continue his vendetta, this time against our business. For a site which apparently prides itself on its independence, this is unacceptable conduct.

As the six of us who started this business initially met on MSE, this is a sad day for Private Parking Appeals, as we now feel we can no longer, in good faith, endorse MSE as a useful and helpful forum for people wanting to fight Private Parking Charges. Accordingly, we have now removed the MSE link from our resources.


We have been contacted by Lynne Reeves, the former Company Secretary, about this blog. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, PPA wishes to make it clear that Ms Reeves has not been associated with the company since her termination as Company Secretary, by unanimous vote of the board, on 28 November 2015. This blog does not represent Ms Reeves views.

We freed the High Wycombe Three – Success in court

Private Parking Appeals was contacted by three concerned residents of a block of flats in High Wycombe, who had all received multiple tickets from Parking Control Management (UK) for instances where their vehicles had been parked on the private roadway of the estate. They had understood, from the managing agents, that roadway parking was acceptable between 5pm and 9am, and the purpose of the parking scheme was to deter intruders, not to ticket genuine residents. However PCM’s operative would sneak round at 5am to put tickets on their windscreens.

The matter came to a head when PCM, through Gladstones Solicitors of Knutsford, issued County Court Claims against the three, for around £900, £1050, and £1550 respectively. Our legal team prepared Defence Statements for the cases, and advised the defendants through the various stages of the pre-hearing process. Once a court hearing date of 21 April had been set, we also provided the defendants with Witness Statements and a Skeleton Argument, together with the relevant evidence and case law authorities.

At the hearing in High Wycombe County Court, District Judge Glen decided to hear all three cases together, as the issues and arguments were essentially the same. PCM were clearly concerned as to what precedent might be set by the court’s decision, and sent an expensive London barrister to argue their case. One of our experienced legal consultants attended personally to act as a Lay Representative for the defendants, and so the case got underway.

The central issue in this case was the signage placed by PCM around the estate roadways, which said “No Parking On This Roadway At Any Time”, and lower down in a smaller font “By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms:” and then “You agree to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100 …”.

The case made by PCM’s counsel was that this was a contractual offer, and that by parking in the roadway the defendants became liable for a £100 charge for each instance. Our submission was that the signage attempted to create an offer on the basis of forbidding a course of action, and that PCM were in fact offering nothing to motorists. This meant that one of the essential elements of a contract – offer and acceptance – was missing, and therefore no contract existed.

After considering the arguments from both sides, District Judge Glen ruled that he disagreed with the Claimant’s argument, and agreed with us that there could be no contract created by a sign which was absolutely forbidding. As there was no contract, the defendants had no liability, and the claims were dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

PCM (UK) are IPC members, and many of the parking companies in that organization attempt to create contractual liability by displaying forbidding notices – a prime example being VCS at John Lennon Airport, Liverpool. This judgment clarifies the legal position, and emphasises the shaky ground upon which these companies are operating. It is to be hoped that the adjudicators at the IAS will take due note of this.

Private Parking Appeals reiterates its call for single ATA, with a proven independent appeals process and for government regulation of the private parking industry.

For a more detailed comment, please take a look at the Parking Prankster’s blog