OK so a response from the operator with several attachments. The majority relate to the correspondence already shown and pictures of the terms and signage (T's & C's etc.), plus a medley of undated photographs of the car park showing a working payment machine.
Excel have failed to provide actual system data showing logs and instead have made disclaiming statements as per point 3 ("we don't operate that payment system") and point 13 ("if you don't disclose who the driver was, we won't disclose the data"). Further they have not addresssed the point that their own website was not operating.
Full transparency, after a lot of hassle with the bank I managed to get time stamps for the authorisation requests, which I included in the appeal. The first was, as they state, for £0.00 when I was setting up an account, I did immediately purchase 3 hours and the app showed the countdown (see point 9). Of course, I have no evidence of this, but Excel's position, is that it's their 3rd party providers problem and not theirs. I did think it was a bit weird that I had to authorise the second payment for £0.75, but put it down to my account being pretty finicky on these sort of transactions. Also re. point about no evidence of calling the helpline, the reason for not calling it is that another driver was having exactly the same problem and they told me not bother calling the helpline because it just went to an automated message although I suspect were only referring to the pay by phone number provided and not their helpline. Since I thought I had managed to pay there, I naturally thought there was no need to call the helpline.
It is also worth noting the contradictory statement of point 2 with that of point 11 - If I'd realised there was a mistake and paid for 4 hours rather than additional 1 I would not have been issued with a PCN.
Operator response to IAS appeal:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 14/01/2026 14:31:31.
The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 20/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 20/11/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
1. The Parkgate Car Park Darlington Tyre & Auto Care is private land and motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. The signage (supplied) in this area states: ‘24 Hour Pay Car Park' and ‘After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 5 minutes is allowed to purchase the required parking tariff'. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite, including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
3. Pay by Phone facilities are available at this car park via Connect Cashless Parking (CCP). This is third party software for which we are not responsible.
4. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and any vehicle that remains on the car park and fails to purchase a valid P&D ticket or make payment by phone is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
5. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 20/11/2025. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.
6. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and exit from the car park and the images supplied show that the appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 17:52:00 and exited at 21:38:12; a parking duration of 3hr 46min 12sec.
7. Payment data supplied shows only a single valid payment of the one hour tariff was made for the appellant's VRM on the day in question. This is not disputed by the appellant. The data also shows that other motorists made payments while the appellant's vehicle was on site.
8. The supplied payment data further shows that no failed CCP payments were recorded. This is corroborated by the appellant's own evidence, which shows that only a zero-value authorisation charge had been approved on the app in addition to a payment of the one hour tariff (plus convenience charge). As such, the evidence indicates a user rather than system error, namely a failure to complete a purchase after approving the zero-value authorisation charge required to register a payment card on the app.
9. It is important to note that when payment is made via Connect, a confirmation is issued once the payment has been successfully processed and the parking session has commenced. Unless and until such confirmation is received, a motorist has no reasonable basis to assume they are authorised to park.
10. Where a motorist is unable to make payment using the available payment methods, or were at all unsure whether a payment had been made, a helpline is provided for assistance. The appellant has provided no evidence of calling the helpline.
11. The appellant's underpayment does not mitigate their liability for the charge. A consideration period is provided to allow motorists to read the Terms and Conditions and either make a valid payment or leave site. However, in accordance with the recent changes to the IPC Single Code of Practice relating to ANPR-operated car parks, had a valid payment been made prior to the vehicle exiting the car park, covering the full duration of the stay, no Parking Charge would have been issued. As confirmed by the supplied payment data, no such payment was made on the date in question and no evidence has been provided showing that the motorist was unable to pay the required tariff.
12. The contract between the appellant and EPS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. We reiterate that the appellant had the opportunity to leave the site if they could not comply with the terms and conditions.
13. We would note that the appellant has no entitlement to the data they have requested as it is not personal to themselves. As this data is private and/or commercially sensitive, and/or relates to other motorists and is ultimately irrelevant with regards to the motorist's liability for a charge, it will not be supplied.
14. The charge is in no way punitive. Any motorist who familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be notified of the relevant charges. By accepting the terms and conditions of parking on this private land, a motorist freely accepts to pay the advertised charge in event of breaching the contract.
15. The adjudicator will appreciate that no motorist is entitled to park for free, particularly when payment facilities were available and operational. We maintain that the Terms and Conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the appellant's attention at the time of parking.
16. The appellant became liable for the charge as per the Terms and Conditions displayed by failing to make a valid payment to cover the entire duration of their stay.
