1
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: November 30, 2025, 11:58:27 am »
Okay awesome,
thank you!
thank you!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: November 29, 2025, 10:57:04 pm »
Thank you so much, I sent this off about a week ago. I haven't had a response, apart from the canned 'we will respond as soon as possible' email, they also say to use the following form, https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/reply-form/
Should I re-add the email into there to make sure they have received?
Thanks again
Should I re-add the email into there to make sure they have received?
Thanks again
3
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or n
« on: November 18, 2025, 05:47:27 pm »
Hello All!
I now have the Letter of claim, please find image of letter attached, https://postimg.cc/gallery/wppyTJY
What should I do now?
Interestingly they are still using a shortened version of my name not my legal name.
Any help is much appreciated!
I now have the Letter of claim, please find image of letter attached, https://postimg.cc/gallery/wppyTJY
What should I do now?
Interestingly they are still using a shortened version of my name not my legal name.
Any help is much appreciated!
4
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: October 16, 2025, 04:51:30 pm »
Hi there,
I've now been passed through to dcbl, have attached the letter. Presuming this is just a first warning before an actual Letter of Claim. Interestingly, they're using a nickname of mine and not my actual legal name, missing about 5 letters. I wonder if I could consider that a major keying error
Do I need to contact them as they ask or just leave it?
Thanks!
https://postimg.cc/Zv9cHz5M
I've now been passed through to dcbl, have attached the letter. Presuming this is just a first warning before an actual Letter of Claim. Interestingly, they're using a nickname of mine and not my actual legal name, missing about 5 letters. I wonder if I could consider that a major keying error
Do I need to contact them as they ask or just leave it?Thanks!
https://postimg.cc/Zv9cHz5M
5
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: July 02, 2025, 12:05:38 pm »
Ah, I understand now.
Do they have any tactics they employ to get default judgements, or anything to look out for?
Or is it just wait for a letter of claim? iPark have my correct address as I received the NTK there.
Do they have any tactics they employ to get default judgements, or anything to look out for?
Or is it just wait for a letter of claim? iPark have my correct address as I received the NTK there.
6
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: July 02, 2025, 11:34:08 am »
Okay great, and the default judgment is in favour of the defendant in that 95%?
I think I wont pay now after this advice!
I think I wont pay now after this advice!
7
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: July 02, 2025, 09:36:18 am »
Thanks for the advice!
How would I Park be beaten in my case?
I've seen online that often the additional charges can be dropped too? And would the new ruling on £20 being offered show that this is the proportionate sum for a keying error?
Is it a benefit to my case that I was on my way to a pretty intense medical appointment? I also have diagnosed ADHD which makes me prone to error, particularly under stress (I have proof of appointment and diagnosis.
There's a lot of research into how acute stress can lead to higher rates of human error (30-40%), ADHD which makes human error rate even higher (around 1.5x). There's also a lot of studies showing high anxiety before the type of appointment that I was having. So in essence from a scientific point of view, I was very likely to make a keying error in this state (almost a 50/50 chance). I-Park are well aware their carpark is used by the hospital patients, so their rigidity on the matter seems almost predatory and could be considered exploiting individuals, which is against the consumer rights act? Seeing as their ticket machines offer no indicator to users that they have not keyed in an entire VRN, they haven't provided sufficient assistance to the individuals using their carpark.
I feel like it's a pretty dramatic argument but could help, I could email that to them as I imagine they want to avoid anything to do with this kind of thing? Didn't add any of this to my appeal.
By their own logic, seeing a sign is entering into a contract, they know they are dealing with vulnerable individuals asa the hospital is clearly signed.
Suggesting that you pay even £20 is foolish.OP - in your case, as you have discovered, we're past the £20 stage, but as above, I Park can nearly always be beaten.
How would I Park be beaten in my case?
Full tariff paid: operator suffered no lossYou'd still need to extinguish Beavis for that. Some Judges (if it gets that far) may not blink at £100. Remember if they call it will be in the £250 region by the time they've added mythical charges.
I've seen online that often the additional charges can be dropped too? And would the new ruling on £20 being offered show that this is the proportionate sum for a keying error?
Is it a benefit to my case that I was on my way to a pretty intense medical appointment? I also have diagnosed ADHD which makes me prone to error, particularly under stress (I have proof of appointment and diagnosis.
There's a lot of research into how acute stress can lead to higher rates of human error (30-40%), ADHD which makes human error rate even higher (around 1.5x). There's also a lot of studies showing high anxiety before the type of appointment that I was having. So in essence from a scientific point of view, I was very likely to make a keying error in this state (almost a 50/50 chance). I-Park are well aware their carpark is used by the hospital patients, so their rigidity on the matter seems almost predatory and could be considered exploiting individuals, which is against the consumer rights act? Seeing as their ticket machines offer no indicator to users that they have not keyed in an entire VRN, they haven't provided sufficient assistance to the individuals using their carpark.
I feel like it's a pretty dramatic argument but could help, I could email that to them as I imagine they want to avoid anything to do with this kind of thing? Didn't add any of this to my appeal.
By their own logic, seeing a sign is entering into a contract, they know they are dealing with vulnerable individuals asa the hospital is clearly signed.
8
Private parking tickets / I Park Services – Paid 2 hrs but partial VRN - Appeal rejected - guidance on whether to pay or not
« on: July 01, 2025, 11:53:59 am »I paid for 2 hours at Beckett St hospital car park but, only 4 characters of my VRN were entered.I Park Services want £100 as I appealed with the IAS due to it seeming predatory to uphold such strict terms for a hospital carpark so lost a £20 offer (will just pay this next time). My deadline to pay is 4 July, inclined to pay £100 but seems unjust. Should I sit tight for a Letter Before Claim or just pay?
Details as follows:
Parking company: I Park Services Ltd (IPC member)
Location: Beckett Street hospital car park, Leeds
Date of event: 7 May 2025
NTK received: 9 May 2025
Input error: only the first four characters of the VRN
Fee paid: 2-hour tariff (ticket kept)
Visit reason: hospital appointment
Timeline
7 May: paid for 2 hours; entered only the first four VRN characters
9 May: £100 NTK issued for “No valid payment”
14 May: internal appeal (ticket + explanation) offered reduced rate of £20.
15 May: Appealed with IAS.
20 May: IAS appeal lodged (ticket proof; cited IPC §15.7 and CRA 2015)
28 May: IAS appeal dismissed.
29 May: I offered £20 without prejudice to settle the (IPC §§14.5 and 15.7)
30 May: I Park reply: “unable to accept £20; charge £100;" refused any further correspondence.
5 Jun: I emailed the hospital parking service and they replied that its private land run by I Park; so trust cannot help.
Current: £100 deadline 4 July.
3 Key points in my favour
Full tariff paid: operator suffered no loss
IPC Code v9 §15.7: genuine key-entry error with payment should be capped at £20
Consumer Rights Act 2015: penalties must be fair and proportionate; £100 is excessive
IAS appeal removed the Code’s £20 option – feels anti-consumer, especially for hospital visitors
Should I hold firm and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or pay the £100 now?
How likely would they be to follow it up with a small claims preceding and how likely would I be to win in a small claims court. I feel I have a pretty good standing but am receiving a lot of different advice.
Evidence linked: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NmfWYLS
Any guidance welcome!
Pages: [1]