ParkingEye, Harrow Hall, Langley

[b789]

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)

---

Country: England/Wales

---

Parking operator: ParkingEye Ltd

---

Operator (Other):

---

First Awareness: Initial notice from the parking operator

---

Awareness (Other):

---

Date of Alleged Contravention: Wed 07/01/2026

---

Issue Date on Notice: Sat 10/01/2026

---

Method of Issue: By post (ANPR/camera)

---

Issue Method (Other):

---

Driver Identified: No – the driver has not been identified

---

Who Identified Driver: Not applicable

---

Driver Disability/Protected Characteristic: No

---

Location Known: Yes

---

Location Type: Other/Unknown

---

Location Name: Harrow Hall, Langley

---

Responded to Notice: No

---

Initial Appeal Made: No

---

Appeal Response Received: Not applicable

---

Secondary Appeal: Not applicable

---

Secondary Appeal Outcome: Not applicable

---

Debt Recovery Letters: No

---

Letter of Claim: No

---

County Court Claim: No

---

Court Stage: Not applicable

---

Evidence Available: Yes

---

Your role in this case?: Registered Keeper

---

Role Explanation:

---

Additional Information:

---

[b789]

Having checked GSV, this appears to be the location:

   

It would appear to be an entrapment site as the Harrow Hall section of the car park is not clearly delineated from the adjoining Harrow Market, council run car park. The signs that I can make out from GSV state that the Harrow Hall section is "Permit Holders Only Mon - Fri" which is a prohibition rather than a contractual offer that says "you may park here for £100 if you do not have a permit".

When you look at the ParkingEye signs at Harrow Hall (from what I can make out in the GSV view), the whole problem becomes obvious once you read them from a legal standpoint. The sign tells you that from Monday to Friday the area is “Permit holders only”. That wording is not an invitation or an offer — it’s a prohibition. It tells anyone without a permit that parking is simply not available to them during those days. There is no choice being presented and no alternative set of terms for non‑permit holders to accept.

Even though the sign goes on to state, very clearly, that “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”, that line does not transform the prohibition into a contractual offer. It is still framed as a consequence for breaking a rule, not as a price for choosing to park. In contract law, that distinction is fundamental. A contract requires an offer that the other party can accept. If the sign tells you that you are not permitted to park unless you already hold a permit, then there is nothing for a non‑permit holder to accept. They are not being offered parking on any terms.

Because of that, the £100 charge — even though it is printed prominently — cannot operate as a contractual term. It is a penalty attached to a forbidden act. And a forbidden act cannot form the basis of a contract. If parking is not offered to you, you cannot accept a contract by parking. Without an offer, there is no acceptance; without acceptance, there is no contract; and without a contract, there can be no breach.

If ParkingEye genuinely wanted to create a contractual relationship with someone who doesn’t have a permit, the sign would have to be written in a completely different way. It would need to say something like: “If you park without a permit Monday to Friday, you agree to pay £100.” That would give the driver a choice, and by choosing to park, they would be accepting the terms. But that is not what the current sign says. It simply bans parking and then threatens a charge if you break the rule.

So even though the £100 is clearly displayed, the underlying legal flaw remains exactly the same: the sign does not offer parking to non‑permit holders, and without an offer, there is no contract. A driver cannot be in breach of a contract that never existed.

In situations where no contract is formed, the only remaining legal concept is trespass, and that works very differently. Trespass is not a contractual matter at all — it is simply the unauthorised use of land. Crucially, only the landowner can pursue a claim for trespass, not a parking operator acting as an agent, because an agent has no proprietary interest in the land. Even if the landowner were to pursue it, the only remedy available would be actual damages, which means the landowner must show they suffered a measurable financial loss as a result of the vehicle being there. In a car park with no evidence of obstruction, loss of income, or physical damage, those damages would be negligible or zero. This is why operators like ParkingEye cannot rely on trespass to justify a £100 charge — it simply isn’t available to them, and even if it were, the recoverable amount would be minimal.