5
« on: March 21, 2026, 04:24:24 pm »
Summary:
Received £100 parking charge for 27-minute stay at hotel car park while collecting a guest. Appealed to operator (rejected), then to IAS (dismissed). Now being threatened with debt recovery for £155.
Background:
27-minute visit to hotel car park (evening, 18:07-18:34)
Purpose: collecting hotel guest at check-out time
Vehicle was NOT parked in any marked bay (temporarily stopped)
No payment made as I assumed brief guest collection would be accommodated
Timeline:
Oct 2025: PCN issued (£100, discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days)
Nov 2025: Appealed to operator - rejected with generic response
Dec 2025: Appealed to IAS
Jan 2026: IAS dismissed appeal
Jan-Mar 2026: Sent 2 digital settlement offers (£50 = 50% discount) - all ignored and followed it 19th of march with written tracked letter (awaiting for feedback).
Early Mar 2026: Operator now claims £155, threatens debt recovery agents
My Arguments to IAS:
Inadequate signage - Grace period/time limit information only appeared in small print Terms & Conditions on 2 distant boards, NOT clearly visible on payment machine signage or anywhere near where drivers park/pay
Hotel context - 27 minutes is reasonable for hotel guest collection (checkout, luggage, etc.)
Not parked in bay - Vehicle was temporarily stopped for guest collection, not occupying any marked parking space
Disproportionate charge - £100 for 27-minute guest collection with no loss to operator
IAS Adjudicator's Decision (Dismissed):
The adjudicator ruled:
On grace period: "The grace period is a period of ten minutes at the end of a permitted period of parking, which is longer than one hour in duration. Consequently, it does not apply at the start of the parking event."
On consideration time: "The driver is entitled to a reasonable time to read the terms and comply with the requirements. However, the time allowed is for this purpose only... Given the size of the car park a consideration period of 10 minutes is more than sufficient."
On "not parked" argument: Rejected - said I was "parked" because Code of Practice defines parking as "being stationary other than in the course of driving"
On hotel guest collection: "If the driver chooses not to read the sign or uses the time for their own purpose, as here, parking and waiting to pick up a passenger the period is at an end"
On signage: "The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient"
On charge amount: Justified by citing ParkingEye v Beavis regarding operator overheads
My Concerns with IAS Decision:
10-minute "consideration period" seems unreasonably short for hotel guest collection where you're waiting for someone to check out
Treating brief guest collection identically to long-term parking seems unfair
No acknowledgement that essential terms (grace period/time limits) were buried in small print, not on prominent signage
IAS decision itself states it is "not legally binding" on me
Current Position:
Made 3 documented settlement offers (£50) with proof of delivery - all ignored
Operator now demanding £155
Considering whether to pay or wait for potential court claim
Questions for Legal Advice:
Are IAS decisions given any weight in County Court, or do judges decide afresh?
Is the "10-minute consideration period for reading signs" a legal standard, or just this adjudicator's opinion?
Does the fact that grace period info was only in small print T&Cs (not on payment signage) give me a defence under Interfoto v Stiletto (onerous terms must be fairly brought to attention)?
Realistic chances of successfully defending if they sue in Small Claims Court?
How can I avoid CCJ while defending? (I'm prepared to fight but don't want CCJ on credit file)
Should I wait for court claim or pay £155 now to avoid potential CCJ?
Additional Info:
Operator is IPC member (not BPA)
Have proof of 3 settlement attempts (19 Jan, 14 Feb, 17 March with signed delivery)
Willing to defend in court if realistic chance of success
Want to avoid CCJ if possible
Show Posts
