Parking/Penalty Charge Notice (PCN’s) Email scam

We have been notified that some members of the public have received email PCN’s. These are not legitimate, please ignore them and do not click on any links within as we never send PCN’s via email. Further information available on the Action Fraud website

Important New ruling: The Court of Appeal in April 2015 dismissed an appeal brought by Barry Beavis, against Parking Eye. See below for more details.

Please note, whilst recent legislation has given drivers a 10 minute grace period on their parking ticket, Green Parking already operates and will continue to operate a 15 minute grace period. The new legislation was passed in March 2015.

Click here to understand why you have been issued with a PCN and under what Statute Parking Charge Notices can be issued and enforced.

If you have received a Green Parking Parking Charge Notice please check the number on the notice and input the GP000 xxxx 4-digit PCN Number
and click Pay Now to pay the Parking Charge Notice:

£40 PCN Discounted Charge

Discounted Rate only valid if paid
within 14 days of notice

PCN Number:
GP

£85 PCN Charge

Full rate must be paid within
28 days of notice

PCN Number:
GP

£100 PCN Charge

A additional £15 administration fee is payable
after 28 days of notice

PCN Number:
GP

If you wish to appeal a PCN please click here.

 

ParkingEye v Beavis
Mr Beavis parked his car at a retail park in Chelmsford. Notices posted at the entrance said that the maximum stay was two hours, otherwise there would be an £85 charge. Mr Beavis overstayed. The car park’s manager, ParkingEye, demanded the charge, which Mr Beavis disputed on the basis that it was a penalty.

The Supreme Court redefined the test for whether payment under a contract for breach is a penalty and therefore unenforceable. It no longer matters whether it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss but whether it imposes a detriment out of all proportion to contractual obligation it was intended to enforce.

ParkingEye’s objective was to deter overstaying motorists and so the charge was legitimate, even if it exceeded its actual loss.