Free Traffic Legal Advice

Sounds good, thank you.

How does this read for a complaint to the car park operator?

Dear Sirs,

I am pleased to note via the IAS that you have dropped the above charge, though I am disappointed you have chosen not to contact me directly.

I wish to complain that you wrongly determined a contract was entered into between I Park Services Ltd and the driver based on both the evidence of your own site cameras and the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice.

In pursuing the charge and rejecting the initial appeal, I contend you wilfully ignored:
the evidence of your ANPR site cameras which clearly captured the driver’s actions consistent with the act of “consideration”
the requirements of the IPC Code’s Consideration Period (5.1) which states drivers have a minimum of five minutes for consideration, when you recorded time on site as being two minutes and 59 seconds, of which the time actually parked was less

Based on the above, it is clear you breached the terms of use for obtaining registered keeper data from the DVLA via KADOE. This further constitutes a breach of the GDPR regulations.

Unless you can adequately explain why you believed a contract was formed between driver and I Park Services Ltd in this instance, I will raise my complaint with the DVLA, request that you be stripped of your KADOE license and be reported to the ICO for breach of GDPR regulations.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Noted about headings and driver/keeper. I'll remove the former and confirm the latter and send the appeal now. Again, thank you so much.

This is probably overkill but what the heck?
If anyone has any further advice, bits to take out or add in, please let me know:

Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxx

Parking Charge Notice appeal for Sens Close, Chester. CH1 2NR.

This appeal is made as the vehicle keeper: I was not the driver at the material time.

This appeal is made on the basis that:

1. No legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.
2. The consideration period described in the IPC Code of Practice has been ignored

In this case, which is corroborated by the operators’ ANPR camera stills, the driver took the following actions:

1. Entered the car park, considered an appropriate space and parked
2. Exited the car and walked to the far wall to consider the sign and charges
3. Returned to the car to consider next steps, noticed a vacant space in an adjacent car park
4. Walked approximately 50ft to consider the space, as it was partially hidden by a low wall
5. Rejected the offer to park in the operator’s car park, returned to the vehicle and left the car park

Point 1:  No legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator

The actions described above, corroborated with photographic evidence, demonstrate that the driver was considering options for parking and that the offer to park was rejected: no contract between the driver and the operator was entered into.

Commentary on Clause 5 of the IPC Code of Conduct: “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.”

Point 2: The consideration period described in the IPC Code of Practice has been ignored


The time of the driver’s presence on the operator’s site is 2 min 59 seconds. This represents a combined total of “parking” time (IPC definition 2.19: “a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land” and “parked” time (a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving).

Clause 5.1 of the IPC Code of Conduct (Consideration period) states “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.”

Annex B states that the consideration period must be a minimum of five minutes.

Clause 5.1 also states the following factors must be taken into account: the time required for a driver to:
a) identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs
b) identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions
c) identify and comply with requirements for payment
d) leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions

The time the driver spent on the operator’s is considerably lower than the minimum consideration period and their actions, evidenced by the Operator’s cameras, follow both Code’s factors in the Consideration period and clearly demonstrate the actions of a party considering a contract and ultimately, rejecting that contract.

It is clear that the Consideration Period and its requirements described in detail in the Code of Practice have been ignored.

More broadly, online research including local media coverage has revealed that this Operator regularly ignores the Code of Practice at many of its sites. This systemic behaviour represents a clear abuse of both the IPC Code and the requirements of KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) contract which governs the use of accessing keeper data from the DVLA. Breach of the IPC Code is a breach of KADOE, which in turn means the Operator has also breached GDPR by making an unlawful request for data. Separate to this appeal, I intend to raise a complaint with the ICO on this matter.

I am dismayed by the Operator’s actions in this case and disturbed by a pattern of behaviour that is contrary to rules governing parking Operators.

Based on the information provided I fully expect this appeal to be upheld.

Many thanks,

Thank you, I would really appreciate that.

So under 5.1 I read this:

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

If they dug out more images that showed me the other side of the gates, are they able to prove I left the premises and therefore I agreed their terms? The reality is that didn't happen but could the location maps of the two car parks come to my defence here?

Sorry, I know you guys are flat out and you do this out of the goodness of your sense of injustice.

Is the reply above ok to send? I know they will reject it so I just want to move the process on as fast as I can.

Thank you.

Thank you.
I think there's a single point of appeal here - the "grace period".
On the IParkServices (IPS) site, when I logged in to lodge an appeal or pay, I saw they have logged 16 images from their two ANPR cameras at this site, and that shows the driver's exact movements.
I don't think any of this detail is relevant to the argument, but it's here for context and the extra images have helped the driver recall his exact movements at the time (it was less than 4 minutes, not exactly memorable or significant at the time).

The driver entered the car park to go and see his brother in the flats opposite. He parked in a bay (the images show this), normal practice for Pay&Display, got out to read the sign on the far wall for how much it was and how to pay. He didn't have any cash so the other option is the mobile pay app. He started to use that, then saw that the residents' car park - which he is entitled to use as a visitor to the flats - had a space. He walked over to this car park (about 30 yards, literally the far corner of this car park - it's not a big space) to get a better view (the images show this). The residents car park is small, six spaces, surrounded by low walls. Satisfied the space was good for his car, he got back in the car and left the car park, and parked in the residents' car park instead.

So - he entered the car park, took actions to pay, then changed his mind and left.

My understanding is that the "consideration period" is just that - a period for consideration. The driver considered the option to park and decided against it.

I hope this doesn't work against the appeal, I don't think it does.

I have since learned that IPS have history with this car park in Chester. The NHS sold the land next to a medical clinic and the new landowner (some anonymous property-dealing types) obviously invited IPS to run the car park. They're sending these bills to people who are driving into their car park to access the clinic to drop off patients. Someone has already shared their story with the local newspaper. Taxi drivers have also been done. The clinic is telling people to park on double-yellows just outside the car park instead. In short, IPS don't give a damn about consideration or anything else - they're MO is to bully people into paying money.

I don't want to pay them a bean.

I also want to bring them down, but that's for another thread.

Thank you for your help - it's much appreciated.