ICE-ing dispute — vehicle was a PHEV/range-extender or no ICE prohibition contracted
'ICE-ing' is a non-EV occupying an EV bay. Operators (EVBM, ChargePoint, BP Pulse) charge for it. Defences: bay sign did not unambiguously prohibit non-EVs; vehicle was a PHEV (which is an EV); the time was outside any restriction. Operator policy varies widely.
Legal basis
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.62; Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4; OZEV public charging guidance
How to identify this in your case
Photograph all signage. Check V5C and propulsion class. Verify whether signage specifically prohibits ICE / specifies EV-only. Plug-in hybrids are EVs for charging-bay purposes.
Sample appeal wording
Dear POPLA Adjudicator, Re: Parking Charge [REF] — [OPERATOR] 1. The operator alleges 'ICE-ing'. I deny that the contractual terms were sufficiently brought to my attention to form a binding contract prohibiting non-EV parking. 2. Sign wording: '[exact wording]'. This wording does not unambiguously prohibit non-EV use. 3. [If applicable: My vehicle is a plug-in hybrid (V5C attached). PHEVs are EVs for charging-bay use.] 4. POFA 2012 Schedule 4 compliance is challenged: [defects]. 5. The £100 charge is not commercially justified. I invite the Adjudicator to allow the appeal. Yours faithfully, [NAME]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticket