The adjudicator made their decision on 29/12/2025 16:59:33.
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.
Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately.
In this case, the Appellant made no effort to read the signage. The CCTV shows that they remained in the vehicle, looking at their mobile phone. They were therefore not considering the terms and conditions of parking and are not entitled to a free period of parking.
The courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked for the reasons stated above.
The NTK was validly served and the specified period of parking was from 12:46:33 to 12:48:11.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
It is noted that the operator has attempted to submit further argument after my rebuttal to their prima facie case. The IAS process does not provide for continuous back-and-forth exchanges, and the operator’s attempt to reopen submissions does not strengthen their position. It merely highlights that they have still failed to address any of the substantive defects identified. The charge remains invalid for the reasons already stated, and no amount of repeated assertion alters the facts or the applicable rules.
For the avoidance of doubt, the operator has still not addressed the core issues. The Single Code of Practice definition they rely on does not override the mandatory five-minute consideration period. A vehicle recorded for only 98 seconds cannot be treated as parked in breach of terms because the driver was still within the allowed time to read the signs and decide whether to stay. The operator’s photos do not show any use of the land beyond a brief occupied stop. The Code does not permit issuing a charge during the consideration period.
The signage on site is prohibitive. It allows parking only for pre-authorised vehicles and forbids all parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting for everyone else. This is not an offer of a contractual licence. A contract cannot be formed on prohibitive wording and no charge can arise from it.
The operator has also not provided evidence of landowner authority. A bare assertion of instruction is not proof.
The boundary between the Tesco car park and the private area is unclear. Any ambiguity must be resolved against the operator.
The Notice to Keeper cannot create keeper liability because it describes a “period of parking” that is too short to constitute parking in the ordinary sense and is entirely within the mandatory consideration period.
The operator’s repeated assertion that the comments “do not affect the validity of the charge” is not evidence. They have not rebutted any of the substantive points raised. The charge is not valid and should be cancelled.
It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
We re-iterate our prima facie comments;
The appellants comments do not affect the validity of the charge,
The Single code of practise defines being parked as a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving with a note that a vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle and/or turned off the ignition.
The vehicle has parked in contravention to the terms and therefore a charge is now due
The operator’s case contains multiple errors. The vehicle was recorded for only 98 seconds, which is not a period of parking. A vehicle that remains occupied and stationary for under two minutes is not parked and this is consistent with the driver reading signs or briefly collecting a passenger. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a minimum five-minute consideration period for all motorists to read the terms and decide whether to stay. The driver left before this period elapsed. A charge cannot be issued for conduct that ends within the mandatory consideration period.
The operator’s statement that the consideration period ends if a passenger leaves the vehicle is untrue. The Code contains no such rule. A passenger momentarily leaving and re-entering the vehicle does not extinguish the driver’s entitlement to the five-minute period.
The signage at the site is prohibitive. It states that parking is only permitted for pre-authorised vehicles and that no parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting is allowed. This wording does not make any contractual offer to non-permit drivers. It forbids them from parking. A contract cannot be formed on the basis of a prohibition. If the operator wishes to allege trespass, only the landowner could bring such a claim and only nominal loss would be recoverable.
The landowner authority is unproven. Stating that the operator is “instructed by the freehold landowner” is not evidence. The assessor requires an actual agreement showing the operator’s authority to issue charges and pursue keeper liability. Until produced, standing is not established.
The site layout is ambiguous. The land directly adjoins a Tesco Express car park and the boundary is unclear. A driver entering from the Tesco side could reasonably believe the area formed part of the Tesco car park. Any ambiguity must be interpreted against the operator.
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA. It refers to a “period of parking” that lasted less than two minutes, which is not a period in any meaningful sense. It does not specify clearly how any contractual terms were breached beyond stating “No E-Permit,” which, due to the forbidding signage, cannot constitute a contractual breach by a non-permit driver. Keeper liability cannot arise where no valid underlying parking charge exists.
For these reasons, the charge is not valid. The operator has not shown a period of parking, has misstated the rules on the consideration period, has relied on prohibitive signage that cannot create a contract, has not proven landowner authority, and has failed to comply with PoFA. The appeal should be upheld.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/11/2025 14:08:01.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/10/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 25/10/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
We note the appellants comments, however it does not exempt them from the terms and conditions of the site. We are instructed by the freehold landowner to enforce parking on site in accordance with the displayed terms. There are numerous signs on site and It is the motorists responsibility when parking on private land to review the terms and conditions of the site and park accordingly. The displayed terms state that parking is only permitted for pre-authorised Autodeals vehicles. The exemption data shows that the vehicle was not pre-authorised and therefore was not permitted to park on site.
We note the appellants comments, however they do not affect the validity of the charge.
The contravention photos provided show that the appellant parked on site. After a period of time a passenger is seen entering the vehicle with goods before the vehicle proceeds to leave. The appellant has therefore parked and made use of the land.
The appellant makes reference to a consideration period. A consideration period is afforded to every motorists to review the terms and conditions of a site and decide whether to park. It is not for motorists to make use of the land. By parking and making use of the facilities the appellant has parked and accepted the displayed terms and therefore is no longer afforded a consideration period.
All notices were sent in accordance with POFA and therefore the registered keeper can be held liable.
By parking on site and making use of the facilities without being pre-authorised the appellant is in direct contravention to the terms and conditions of the site and therefore contractually agree to pay a parking charge.
utter brown stuff
Thank you for your appeal received on 09/11/2025 regarding the above parking charge reference. The
appeals team have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made.
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the multiple date/time stamped pictures gathered at
the time of event, along with any applicable comments from the enforcement team, weighted against any
relevant and fully substantiated mitigating circumstances that may have been supplied with this appeal.
Reason for issue: Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit) / Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit)
It’s important to understand that that parking on private land that is contracted to and managed by One
Parking Solution (OPS) is not a right, its conditional, the (T&C’s) apply to all users of the site and are fully
and clearly displayed on the parking signs (“The Parking Contract”).
Whilst a consideration period is typically afforded to the driver to read the parking T&C’s sign they must
either comply with the T&C’s or remove the vehicle from site, a grace/consideration period is not a free parking period and will not apply if the driver is making use of the land, in addition choosing to not read the
T&C’s of parking is not considered a mitigating circumstance it’s a choice.
When the driver decided to park and/or remain on the contacted land (“The Site”) whilst failing to comply
with the clearly displayed T&C’s the driver automatically entered into a contractual agreement with OPS
and agreed to pay the amount stated on the parking contract to The Creditor (OPS).
At the time the vehicle was parked on site it was not pre-authorised to do so as the vehicle wasn't
registered on the E-Permit system.
The appeals team are writing to inform you that the appeal has been unsuccessful. The driver failed to
park the vehicle in accordance with the clearly displayed T&C’s, additionally the appellant has failed to
substantiate and/or provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
As the passenger made use of the land this Parking Charge has been issued.
The internal appeals team find this parking charge to be issued correctly, we must advise you that once
the discounted settlement rate (if applicable) passes it will not be offered again, you have now reached the
end of our internal appeals procedure. You may now either pay the amount due OR appeal further with
the Independent Appeals Service.
If you still believe that the parking charge was issued incorrectly, then you may appeal further to the
Independent Appeals Service (IAS). You must submit an appeal directly to them online using the following
link: https://www.theias.org/appeal
If you wish to appeal to the IAS, you should ensure to do so within 28 days of the date of this letter.
Please note, that should you choose to use the IAS, you will automatically lose the opportunity to pay the
discounted rate of the charge. If you appeal to the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to the
appeal being determined, then the appeal will be cancelled, and you will not be given a further opportunity
to contest this charge.
If you are not appealing to the IAS, you are now required to make a payment of £60 to reach us by
26/11/2025 or £100 to reach us by 10/12/2025 to avoid this charge being passed on to a debt resolution
firm, and/or to avoid county court proceedings. Please be advised that any further action will incur
additional costs.
Payments can be made using a debit or credit card calling the automated payment line on 0333 0063
428 or paying online at www.oneparkingsolution.co.uk please note OPS do not accept American
Express (AMEX), the payee will need the parking charge reference number and the vehicle registration
mark (VRM) to use the digital payment services.
Alternatively, payments can be made by cheque or postal order made payable to One Parking Solution
Limited, it is recommended that all post is sent recorded delivery to the following address:
Payment Processing Department
One Parking Solution Limited
95 Arundel Road
Worthing
West Sussex
BN13 3EU
Please ensure you write the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration clearly on the
reverse, it is advised that you do not send cash through the post, all postal payments that arrive be
checked and verified against the date of sending on the envelope.
Please note that we are unable to take telephone conversations regarding appeals.
The internal appeals process is full and final, and we are unable to issue any further correspondence
regarding this matter
Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.
Should I include all these points in my appeal?
Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.
Should I include all these points in my appeal?
1. “Consideration Period” (PPSCoP §5.1)
The alleged “contravention period” of 12:46:33–12:48:11 is under two minutes.
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 Feb 2025 version 1.1) requires that:A consideration period of at least five minutes must be allowed after the vehicle enters the site for the driver to read and understand the signage and decide whether to stay.
Since the vehicle left within this period, the driver cannot be deemed to have accepted any terms. Issuing a PCN for conduct that ended within that statutory period is premature and contrary to the Code.
2. Forbidding Signage – No Contract to Non-Permit Drivers
The sign’s key line —“Parking is permitted for pre-authorised Autodels vehicles (valid OPS E-Permit)”
and
“No parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting is permitted on the access roads...”
— clearly forbids all parking by non-permit holders. That wording is not an offer but a prohibition. Therefore, no contractual relationship can arise with a non-permit driver. At most, the driver could be accused of trespass, and only the landowner (not OPS) could bring such a claim — and then only for nominal damages.
3. Ambiguous Site and Boundaries
You noted this is land adjacent to a Tesco Express car park, owned by a car dealership at the rear.
Without clear demarcation or boundary signage distinguishing the dealership’s land from Tesco’s, a driver could reasonably assume the whole area served Tesco customers.
Consumer law requires unambiguous and prominent terms; any ambiguity is interpreted against the drafter (contra proferentem).
4. PoFA 2012 – Superficially Compliant, but Functionally Defective
Although OPS issued the NtK within 14 days (25 → 30 Oct, deemed served 3 Nov), its compliance under Schedule 4 §9(2)(a)–(f) is still questionable:• It states, “This charge relates to the period of parking specified above,” yet the period cited is less than two minutes — insufficient to evidence “parking.”
• It does not specify the circumstances under which the charge became payable beyond repeating the generic reason “Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit).”
• The notice implies a contractual liability, but as shown above, no such contract can exist for non-permit drivers on prohibitive signage.
Therefore, even if PoFA timing were met, keeper liability cannot transfer because the underlying “parking charge” is not validly founded.
5. Supporting Case Law and Authorities
PCM v Bull (2016) and UKPC v Masterson (2017) – both confirm that forbidding signage cannot create contractual liability; at most it is trespass.
Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] UKSC 67 – only applies where there is a clear offer to park on certain terms; does not apply to prohibitive wording.
Brennan v Premier Parking (2023) – a single moment of observation or very short stay does not constitute a “period of parking”.
6. Summary of Strong Defence / Appeal Points• Contravention within 5-minute consideration period – no breach possible.
• No contract to non-permit drivers – forbidding signage.
• Ambiguous land boundaries – unfair and misleading.
• No genuine “parking period.”
• Operator lacks standing to claim for trespass.
If the passenger returned before the vehicle departed, that reinforces the transitory nature of the stop — the car never “parked”. Even if the passenger did not, the total time is well below the consideration period threshold.
Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or
include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator
must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in
Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear
that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the
parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled
Duration of parking period
05
Duration of parking period
COMMENTARY ON CLAUSE 5
As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of time needed varies according to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open to the public includes the time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should the driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration period before the contract between the driver and the parking operator is made. It is also a requirement to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period where parking is permitted, and all terms and conditions have been complied with.
5.1. Consideration period
Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B. The following factors should be taken into account:a) the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs;
NOTE 1: For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc.
b) the time required for a driver to identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not invited;
c) the time required for a driver to identify and comply with requirements for payment;
d) the time required for a driver to leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions;
e) the impact of the layout of the controlled land on 5.1a) to 5.1d);
f) the impact of the number of vehicles accessing the car park on 5.1a) to 5.1d); and g) the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land on 5.1a) to 5.1d).
NOTE 2: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more than 5 minutes. See Annex B Table B.1