Show Posts - Bron74

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 lessBased 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.

RESULT! "Operator conceded this appeal due to mitigation", it says on the IAS appeals portal.The email notification from IAS went EVEN FURTHER and said "Due to further information I Park Services LTD has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled."That's it by way of explanation (ie no explanation at all). No next steps, no redress, no apology or note from the operator (not that I particularly want one), nothing. I should be grateful, I suppose.As far as I can tell, the operator did not submit their case within the IAS's five working day period. I got the IAS email at 10.28pm which, give or take 1 hour, is exactly five working days since I appealed. Either people at IAS are working for the CONSUMER GOOD at 10.28pm on a Friday, or it's an automated email triggered by the lack of the operator's case. I'm leaning towards the latter.Now I could walk away a happy camper, but it begs the question "what further information?". They had it from the start.It's obvious (to me) there is little - if any - human involvement in this. It's mostly automated. Their cameras fire alerts. They'll use their DVLA license to get registered keeper details, then mail-merge and auto-reply the rest. They took SEVEN MINUTES to reject my initial appeal. Maybe the IAS step takes more effort on their part and they can't keep up with their own scam. I hope so.If that's the case, the IAS appeal is worth taking, regardless of their own joke status.Anyway, is it worth raising the issue about the very likely breach of GDPR? They're clearly abusing whatever rules there are around the use of accessing DVLA data? Is it worth asking "what new information" changed their minds, even though there were no "minds" on this to begin with?Or should I just conclude by saying a big THANK YOU to the responders and experts on here - and indeed others fighting their own cases - for inspiring the fight and steering me through? I applaud your patience, kindess and commitment.Let me know if you want me to upload a copy of the IAS email or the (very brief) update on my appeal portal. I've literally copied all it said at the start of this message. And if you'd like me to keep pushing with reference to GDPR or anything else, I'm happy to keep up the good fight.

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.

Thank you for your guidance, how about this? Note, ParkPayStay can be used as a web app, still need a mobile but not necessarily a native app.Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxxDate: xx January 2026Parking Charge Notice Appeal – Sens Close, Chester, CH1 2NRI am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver at the material time.This appeal is made solely on the basis that no legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.No Parking Event / Failure to Establish a Period of ParkingThe PCN states that the “Period of Parking” was 2 minutes and 59 seconds. This is materially incorrect. The two ANPR images provided merely show the vehicle’s time on site, not a period of parking.A vehicle cannot be parked for the entire duration between ANPR entry and exit timestamps, as time is necessarily spent entering the site, locating a space, manoeuvring, exiting a space, and leaving the site. The operator has therefore improperly included periods of non-parking in order to exaggerate the alleged parked duration.I understand that the IAS has a specific definition of what constitutes “parking”, and the operator’s evidence does not satisfy that definition.Consideration Period and Rejection of ContractIn this instance, the driver entered the car park, located a space, and parked briefly. The driver then exited the vehicle and walked across the car park to review the signage that had been observed on arrival, including signage located near the gateway.This conduct clearly falls within the mandatory consideration period set out in the IPC Code of Conduct and demonstrates that genuine consideration of the terms was taking place.The driver had intended to visit a relative in a nearby apartment block. While moving toward the gateway, the driver noticed that there may be parking available within the apartment complex itself. The driver checked and confirmed that a space was available.At this point, the driver also noted that the only available method of payment besides cash, which the driver did not have, required the use of a web app (www.parkpaystay.com). The driver decided not to accept these terms, rejected the operator’s offer of contract, returned to the vehicle, and exited the site promptly.This behaviour is entirely consistent with a driver who has chosen not to accept the advertised terms and conditions.The driver then parked at the adjacent site and accessed the apartment block.The total time on the operator's site was 179 seconds, well within the Code of Conduct's required consideration period. The driver’s movements are fully corroborated by the operator’s own ANPR/CCTV evidence.Predatory Conduct and Misuse of Keeper DataIn addition, online research shows that I Park Services Ltd has been the subject of numerous appeals on this exact issue: namely, a failure to apply the required consideration period. In each instance, the operator appears to rely on highly subjective and inconsistent reasoning to justify disregarding the Code of Conduct.Such behaviour is demonstrably predatory in nature, amounts to a misuse of DVLA-supplied keeper data, and constitutes a breach of the operator’s KADOE agreement.AppealFor the reasons set out above, no contract was formed, no valid parking event occurred, and the PCN has been issued improperly.I therefore expect this appeal to be upheld.Yours faithfully,[Registered Keeper]

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: xxxxxxParking 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 ignoredIn 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 parked2. Exited the car and walked to the far wall to consider the sign and charges3. Returned to the car to consider next steps, noticed a vacant space in an adjacent car park4. Walked approximately 50ft to consider the space, as it was partially hidden by a low wall5. Rejected the offer to park in the operator’s car park, returned to the vehicle and left the car parkPoint 1:  No legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operatorThe 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 ignoredThe 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 needsb) identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditionsc) identify and comply with requirements for paymentd) leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditionsThe 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 so much (and for pointing out it was TWO MINUTES 59 seconds, not 3 min 59 - don't know where I got that from).You're right, they'll have all the driver's movements on camera, including driving to the adjacent car park (the entrance is visible in some of the ANPR images).I'll share my full appeal here next, and then let you know what I hear from IAS.Thank you again!

Thank you, I would really appreciate that.

Hi, just to recap, could we be on sticky ground with this "leaving the premises" Code caveat to the consideration period? And second, is it worth bothering appealing to the IAS or should I just ride it out to the court letter?

So under 5.1 I read this:NOTE 2: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex Bwhere 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 bythe driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premisesIf 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?

Hi thereAppeal rejected! I sent it at 8.54pm on Wednesday January 14 and received the rejection at 9.07am on Thursday January 15. Is that a record?I have saved the first page here, note the highlighted line: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ir1V3aPF8p5FC_7m-l5o3qnKlUuMZBs4/view?usp=drive_linkThis reads "If drivers are seen exiting the site without payment, they are deemed to waive their right to a consideration period."Is this correct?The following pages show a copy of the photos they have gathered via their ANPR cameras. These show the driver moving on foot towards the main gates. To explain and as described in a previous post, the driver was investigating a possible space in an adjacent car park. I have added an aerial view photo with the car parks marked red; the smaller (6 spaces) is the residents car park. You can see they are next to each other. There is a low brick wall around the residents car park, partially obscuring the space.Page 2 of the rejection letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OC4JG5aPz06dTcGJSJdQB-9cMZ0Ak_8n/view?usp=drive_linkPage 3 (ANPR photos): https://drive.google.com/file/d/194L7uSPK_syglfZ3sk9MTOxqNX53qoH_/view?usp=drive_linkPage 4 (ANPR photos): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jtSwHRzUT78UCWs78Q0KcHPfM-dYoFzd/view?usp=drive_linkPage 5 (ANPR photos): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j0WxONj-WT_Nbh75pMZPiWPELMuPe5HP/view?usp=drive_linkThe aerial view showing the 2 car parks: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l5YJzianv1B5pD_b0BpdDCFt9fp75ngd/view?usp=drive_linkPlease help me with next steps:1. Is their assertion that the driver leaving the car park overrides the consideration period? Note, the images do not show the driver actually leaving the car park, but I am going to assume they could take off their cameras many more photos2. If I choose not to appeal to IAS (because I assume they will reject also), would this count against me later on in the process?3. Can we hold their extraordinarily rapid response in rejecting my appeal in the contempt it deserves? This may be a button-pressing exercise for them, but it's a solid waste of my time and, by extension, yoursStill can't tell you how angry I am about this. The irony? I parked there the very next day and paid for a 24-hour stay so me and my brother and a few friends could have a night out in Chester. They'll have the records but I don't suppose they give a damn about that either.

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'll keep it simple and direct (and steal from the suggested reply in the IPS/Wadebridge case), since I know this is just the start of the merry dance!Dear SirsI have received your Notice to Keeper (Ref #: ________) for vehicle registration ____ ___, in which you allege the driver has incurred a parking charge. I am appealing as the registered keeper on the basis that no consideration period was offered.Section 5.1 of the private parking sector single Code of Practice, which the IPC states must be followed, states that "Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration". Annex B of the Code of Practice specifies that in a car park for which a tariff is due (pay and display), this consideration period must be a minimum of 5 minutes.As per your own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on site for 3 minutes 59 seconds, far less than the minimum consideration period. As such, the charge must be cancelled.In addition, Schedule 7 of the IPC's Code of Practice 13.1 states, “The parking operator must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Schedule 7.” Under Schedule 7, 13.1.3 states: “The consideration period ends at the point where there is evidence that the driver has, by parking, accepted the terms, conditions and restrictions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or turning off the ignition of the vehicle and remaining stationary for more than 5 minute.”Again, and as per your own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on site for 3 minutes 59 seconds, far less than the minimum consideration period. As such, the charge must be cancelled.I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled and that my personal data has been removed from your records.Yours,

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.

I'm the registered keeper and received a Parking Charge Notice from I Park Services (IPS) on Jan 3 2026, dated 30 Dec 2025, relating to Sens Close.The driver pulled into Sens Close Car Park in Chester on Boxing Day, 26 Dec 2025.The driver did not park but stopped to read the sign.It was noted that it did not take cards. The driver hunted for cash but could not find any.The driver then started to use the app, then changed their mind and then left the car park.Time noted via ANPR: 3 minute and 59 seconds.At no point did the driver use Sens Close for car parking purposes and therefore there was no valid contract between the driver and the car park operator.I note with dismay a very similar case relating to an even shorter time period and IPS in Wadebridge: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/i-park-services-ltd-parking-charge-(2min13s)-jubilee-road-wadebridge/A year and all that effort (and still ongoing) and for what? Insanity!Regardless, I intend to fight it anyway and I would really appreciate any support you can provide.Hope these links work ok to show a scan of the letter received and of the car park sign:PCN Page 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3Wh_qY1nSSeWsmuCJ858y-BiaQUvZbc/view?usp=drive_linkPCN Page 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vx8FFYRuHaJbBQ_OJyCyIQhQ_kkEUJ4P/view?usp=drive_linkPCN Page 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1819mBKBpcIz4lidCVABEuv3Ak3lkOICe/view?usp=drive_linkSens Close sign: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g9G_ZCiBNWWbsYCJ8oFOx_CyRv3IMnJn/view?usp=drive_link