Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / OPS / Elm Park Car Park / second appeal (IAS) – paid parking, alleged 47-second excess beyond grace period
« on: May 18, 2026, 04:07:24 am »
Hi all,
Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to set out the full background clearly as the case is now at the second appeal stage with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS); I’ve tried to be brief where I can and have linked to the relevant documents for brevity.
I’m looking for advice on a private parking charge from One Parking Solution (OPS) at Elm Park Car Park. OPS have submitted their prima facie case/comments and I now have the opportunity to respond.
I would appreciate any feedback before I submit my response.
---
## 1. Initial parking event
OPS issued a Parking Charge Notice for: “Parking duration not paid in full”
Initial Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCKwHgRPG5kTIS2tycxa5KLAQriLFzlwVSMIvvos9U5WRg?e=XfJfU4
The alleged contravention occurred at:
Elm Park Car Park
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oWB1WUgi9yk3qWTKA
The vehicle was recorded by ANPR:
A parking session was purchased via the authorised payment app:
---
## 2. Signage at the car park
Photos / documents of the signs can be found here:
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCoGDSJI6ceQKnIatWr8E_fAfcG6pEEogFc8u4TXP0IvQ8
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQAC8nmE0exzTrlOg766ITU7Acio7N0-UB26d9aH2doX6eU
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQBfGs1xrJ-gR6gcWUeK0alUAfl1UrugJcZUB33NV4WGO7M
---
## 3. Initial appeal to OPS
I appealed to OPS as the keeper. Initial appeal submitted to OPS:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDN03aAOzdoSIwgG8b5exPwAXG2f5QuuwXjmOal_ovVrGI?e=h7fNwH
I also used these forum posts discussing the 10-minute grace period as guidance when preparing my appeal: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/what-is-the-legalenforceable-timing-for-the-10-minute-grace-period-10th-minute-o/.
---
## 4. OPS rejection
OPS rejected the appeal.
Their rejection letter stated the reason for issue as:
**“Parking duration not paid in full”**
They gave the contravention time as **14:00:59**, but did not explain:
OPS rejection letter:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDNk18maCkXSpAXe0Wsv1IZAfotNMBLHWzWQT90gg9qx-s?e=gOPqNW
---
## 5. IAS appeal
I then appealed to the Independent Appeals Service.
My IAS appeal can be found here:
https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCfwsVL6j7HRLZd2Qg8GPD3AYAgIIGTbhRjhrBUXpZNknA?e=IGteKj
---
## 6. OPS comments / prima facie case
OPS have now submitted their comments.
Their key point appears to be that their payment data shows the driver was permitted to park until 13:50:12, and the vehicle exited at 14:00:59.
This means that, even on OPS’s own case, the vehicle was only 47 seconds beyond a 10-minute grace period.
OPS prima facie case / comments:
https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQD-2kIgnZzGQqlmfs-82VrMARYY3q6SnFXam9CAcInDDUA?e=6glE7b
These are the files they've uploaded:
https://1drv.ms/f/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IgD0mbYfwhdXQrOp9EB7t2DhATQKs3Jjs_McOojutL6xXKk?e=l2vfAY
---
## 7. Draft response to OPS comments
This is the response I am considering submitting:
---
The operator’s prima facie case confirms that payment was made and states that the vehicle was permitted to park until 13:50:12, with the vehicle exiting at 14:00:59. On the operator’s own case, the alleged excess beyond a 10-minute grace period is therefore only 47 seconds.
This is not a material breach. A grace period is intended to allow a motorist a reasonable period to leave the site after the paid period ends. The operator has treated 10 minutes as an absolute hard cut-off, despite the requirement being for at least 10 minutes and despite the alleged excess being less than one minute.
The operator’s own signage confirms that ANPR is in use and that parking charges are issued in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice. The same sign also states that “parking charges will be issued and escalated in accordance with the Code of Practice”. Therefore, the operator must apply the Code reasonably, including grace-period requirements.
The operator’s evidence also confirms that the site requires payment to cover the full duration “from time of entry to time of exit”. However, their own PopPay Plus sign says sessions must be purchased “immediately upon arrival” and “prior to leaving site”, and the digital payment system starts only once the driver has accessed the app/payment process. This supports the need for a reasonable consideration period between ANPR entry and payment completion.
The operator’s rejection letter did not state that the paid session expired at 13:50:12, did not explain how the alleged unpaid period was calculated, and did not identify what grace period had been applied. It merely stated “Parking duration not paid in full” and gave the contravention time as 14:00:59. That calculation has only now been clarified in the operator’s comments.
The operator also stated in its rejection letter that my appeal was received on 07/04/2026*, but the appeal evidence confirms it was submitted at 22:33 on 26/03/2026, with “Keeper” selected. OPS now accepts this was an administrative error. While that error alone is not determinative, it further supports my position that the operator’s handling and calculation should not simply be accepted without scrutiny.
This case turns entirely on seconds. The operator has not provided evidence that the ANPR cameras and payment system clocks were synchronised to the same time source, nor evidence of calibration, maintenance, or timestamp accuracy. Where the alleged breach is only 47 seconds beyond the operator’s own stated 10-minute period, strict proof of timing accuracy is essential.
The operator’s site map shows multiple signs within the site and confirms that the entrance sign is separate from the contract signs and payment signage. The entrance sign itself only says “Pay On Arrival”, “Terms & Conditions apply”, and “See signage within the car park for App payment details”; it does not set out the full contractual terms or the £100 charge at the point of entry. This again reinforces that a reasonable consideration period must be allowed.
The operator has asserted that it is instructed by the freehold landowner, but I can see no evidence of landowner authority in the documents provided. No contemporaneous contract, witness statement, or written authority has been produced showing that OPS has the right to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices at this location in its own name. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of its standing. A statement in its own submissions or on its own signage is not evidence of landowner authority.
In summary, OPS’s own evidence shows that the alleged excess is only 47 seconds after the 10-minute grace period. That is de minimis, particularly in an ANPR-controlled site where the recorded exit time is not the same as the actual end of parking. The charge is therefore disproportionate, unsupported by adequate timing evidence, and should be cancelled.
---
Any feedback on the above before I submit my response would be appreciated.
Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to set out the full background clearly as the case is now at the second appeal stage with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS); I’ve tried to be brief where I can and have linked to the relevant documents for brevity.
I’m looking for advice on a private parking charge from One Parking Solution (OPS) at Elm Park Car Park. OPS have submitted their prima facie case/comments and I now have the opportunity to respond.
I would appreciate any feedback before I submit my response.
---
## 1. Initial parking event
OPS issued a Parking Charge Notice for: “Parking duration not paid in full”
Initial Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCKwHgRPG5kTIS2tycxa5KLAQriLFzlwVSMIvvos9U5WRg?e=XfJfU4
The alleged contravention occurred at:
Elm Park Car Park
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oWB1WUgi9yk3qWTKA
The vehicle was recorded by ANPR:
- Entry: 13:14:42
- Exit: 14:00:59
- Total recorded site duration: 46 minutes 17 seconds
A parking session was purchased via the authorised payment app:
- Paid session: 13:20–13:50
- Duration paid for: 30 minutes
- Receipt available here: https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQAD5Fh0rL9lSbzrtjevZh7_ATME2Hmjwv2fbbgb3E2PVzs
---
## 2. Signage at the car park
Photos / documents of the signs can be found here:
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCoGDSJI6ceQKnIatWr8E_fAfcG6pEEogFc8u4TXP0IvQ8
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQAC8nmE0exzTrlOg766ITU7Acio7N0-UB26d9aH2doX6eU
https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQBfGs1xrJ-gR6gcWUeK0alUAfl1UrugJcZUB33NV4WGO7M
---
## 3. Initial appeal to OPS
I appealed to OPS as the keeper. Initial appeal submitted to OPS:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDN03aAOzdoSIwgG8b5exPwAXG2f5QuuwXjmOal_ovVrGI?e=h7fNwH
I also used these forum posts discussing the 10-minute grace period as guidance when preparing my appeal: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/what-is-the-legalenforceable-timing-for-the-10-minute-grace-period-10th-minute-o/.
---
## 4. OPS rejection
OPS rejected the appeal.
Their rejection letter stated the reason for issue as:
**“Parking duration not paid in full”**
They gave the contravention time as **14:00:59**, but did not explain:
- the precise period allegedly unpaid;
- the exact second the paid session was said to have expired
- how the alleged unpaid period was calculated
- what grace period, if any, had been applied.
OPS rejection letter:
https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDNk18maCkXSpAXe0Wsv1IZAfotNMBLHWzWQT90gg9qx-s?e=gOPqNW
---
## 5. IAS appeal
I then appealed to the Independent Appeals Service.
My IAS appeal can be found here:
https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCfwsVL6j7HRLZd2Qg8GPD3AYAgIIGTbhRjhrBUXpZNknA?e=IGteKj
---
## 6. OPS comments / prima facie case
OPS have now submitted their comments.
Their key point appears to be that their payment data shows the driver was permitted to park until 13:50:12, and the vehicle exited at 14:00:59.
This means that, even on OPS’s own case, the vehicle was only 47 seconds beyond a 10-minute grace period.
OPS prima facie case / comments:
https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQD-2kIgnZzGQqlmfs-82VrMARYY3q6SnFXam9CAcInDDUA?e=6glE7b
These are the files they've uploaded:
https://1drv.ms/f/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IgD0mbYfwhdXQrOp9EB7t2DhATQKs3Jjs_McOojutL6xXKk?e=l2vfAY
---
## 7. Draft response to OPS comments
This is the response I am considering submitting:
---
The operator’s prima facie case confirms that payment was made and states that the vehicle was permitted to park until 13:50:12, with the vehicle exiting at 14:00:59. On the operator’s own case, the alleged excess beyond a 10-minute grace period is therefore only 47 seconds.
This is not a material breach. A grace period is intended to allow a motorist a reasonable period to leave the site after the paid period ends. The operator has treated 10 minutes as an absolute hard cut-off, despite the requirement being for at least 10 minutes and despite the alleged excess being less than one minute.
The operator’s own signage confirms that ANPR is in use and that parking charges are issued in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice. The same sign also states that “parking charges will be issued and escalated in accordance with the Code of Practice”. Therefore, the operator must apply the Code reasonably, including grace-period requirements.
The operator’s evidence also confirms that the site requires payment to cover the full duration “from time of entry to time of exit”. However, their own PopPay Plus sign says sessions must be purchased “immediately upon arrival” and “prior to leaving site”, and the digital payment system starts only once the driver has accessed the app/payment process. This supports the need for a reasonable consideration period between ANPR entry and payment completion.
The operator’s rejection letter did not state that the paid session expired at 13:50:12, did not explain how the alleged unpaid period was calculated, and did not identify what grace period had been applied. It merely stated “Parking duration not paid in full” and gave the contravention time as 14:00:59. That calculation has only now been clarified in the operator’s comments.
The operator also stated in its rejection letter that my appeal was received on 07/04/2026*, but the appeal evidence confirms it was submitted at 22:33 on 26/03/2026, with “Keeper” selected. OPS now accepts this was an administrative error. While that error alone is not determinative, it further supports my position that the operator’s handling and calculation should not simply be accepted without scrutiny.
This case turns entirely on seconds. The operator has not provided evidence that the ANPR cameras and payment system clocks were synchronised to the same time source, nor evidence of calibration, maintenance, or timestamp accuracy. Where the alleged breach is only 47 seconds beyond the operator’s own stated 10-minute period, strict proof of timing accuracy is essential.
The operator’s site map shows multiple signs within the site and confirms that the entrance sign is separate from the contract signs and payment signage. The entrance sign itself only says “Pay On Arrival”, “Terms & Conditions apply”, and “See signage within the car park for App payment details”; it does not set out the full contractual terms or the £100 charge at the point of entry. This again reinforces that a reasonable consideration period must be allowed.
The operator has asserted that it is instructed by the freehold landowner, but I can see no evidence of landowner authority in the documents provided. No contemporaneous contract, witness statement, or written authority has been produced showing that OPS has the right to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices at this location in its own name. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of its standing. A statement in its own submissions or on its own signage is not evidence of landowner authority.
In summary, OPS’s own evidence shows that the alleged excess is only 47 seconds after the 10-minute grace period. That is de minimis, particularly in an ANPR-controlled site where the recorded exit time is not the same as the actual end of parking. The charge is therefore disproportionate, unsupported by adequate timing evidence, and should be cancelled.
---
Any feedback on the above before I submit my response would be appreciated.
