Free Traffic Legal Advice

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 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: xxxxxxx
Date: xx January 2026

Parking Charge Notice Appeal – Sens Close, Chester, CH1 2NR

I 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 Parking

The 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 Contract

In 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 Data

In 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.

Appeal

For 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]

Sorry, that could be my mistake re driver - I thought that earlier in the thread it had been stated that the keeper was not the driver.



Just to be clear - do not lie at any stage.

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.

Have you complained to the operator yet? (Separate to the appeal)

If not, I'd complain to them and then the IPC before the DVLA. Not because they'll do anything, but because if you don't, DVLA's response will be "complain to the IPC first"