Author Topic: GXS Services PCN – Unauthorised Vehicle – Different car in evidence, no timestamp on plate, unverifiable location  (Read 198 times)

0 Members and 70 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hello,

I received this parking charge on Sunday 11th January 2026. The notice is dated January 2nd 2026. It took 9 days to arrive, so I only have about 4 days left to submit an appeal before I lose the discount. Any help ASAP would be appreciated – thanks in advance.

The parking charge letter says “Unauthorised Vehicle”.

Firstly, the photographic evidence they attached doesn’t prove anything. The white car in the photo isn’t even mine – I drive a BMW 1 Series.

Furthermore, on top of that, they attached an isolated close-up photo of my BMW 1 Series number plate. The photo shows no time or date stamp. So what does this evidence even prove?

Also, the location is publicly unverifiable. If you put the whole location they stated into Google Maps, it doesn’t exist. The letter specifies “Arlington Seaside, Southampton, SO14 1NB” as the location of the alleged parking incident.

“Arlington Seaside” – since when did Southampton have a seaside? “SO14 1NB” takes you to the road “Sussex Road”, which again isn’t specified on the letter.

In addition, No “period of parking” is specified – only a single timestamp (11:33) is given

There is not a single photo that shows my full vehicle parked at the location to prove any breach occurred.

Is this a joke? Is this what they call evidence? I can’t let them get away with this . Imagine how many others they have been doing this to.

Surely this is a breach and violates my data through unlawful processing.

What do to do now? Appeal first?

https://ibb.co/Ndf5VtXs
https://ibb.co/WNWDZWhk
https://ibb.co/Ngb7ttFb

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9059632,-1.4033744,15a,75y,331.24h,77.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBPgYZyxPKLrhMJ3Bj1zDKA!2e0?utm_campaign=ml-sul&g_ep=Eg1tbF8yMDI2MDEwN18wIJvbDyoASAJQAg%3D%3D
« Last Edit: January 12, 2026, 07:15:47 pm by Shadow_77 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Are there other pictures on their website? Was your car at the alleged location?

No, there are no other pictures on their website – it’s the exact same ones as in the letter. Just the isolated plate photo (no date/time stamp) and the wider shots showing a completely different white car that isn’t mine ( Our car is BMW 1 Series).
The car was parked legally a bit further down the road in a city council pay-and-display parking area where they paid for a ticket. There was no space to get out, so they had to reverse down the road a little bit, and that’s where their camera picked up the reg. But their evidence doesn’t show any of that . No photo of the full car in the private bay at all, Instead they send me a parking charge of a vehicle that isn’t mine.
Why would they park in a private property bay when they was already paying in a council one? I’ve even got the parking ticket
They are taking the mick . No proper photo evidence of my car being there, wrong vehicle shown, The address they provided is dodgy and incorrect  (“Arlington Seaside” doesn’t exist), and a close-up of the plate with no timestamp/date anyone could of took a picture of the reg like that .
Should appeal this first , then complain .
Fed up . I want compensation. You  think they can just send inaccurate parking charges like this and get away with it ? Not even bothered to check the information properly. Definitely some unlawful acts.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2026, 10:35:03 pm by Shadow_77 »

I wouldn't complicate matters by introducing extraneous appeal points around the location being 'unverifiable' or them failing to specify a period of parking. Whilst these are valid observations, in this case they distract from the key issue (that your vehicle did not park in the location, and their evidence shows a different vehicle). If you include them, it may look more like someone who is trying to find a technicality through which they can avoid paying a PCN, rather than someone who has fallen foul of GXS' incompetence.

I'd draft a simple, factual appeal as the keeper, pointing out that your vehicle was never parked at the location, present for a brief moment performing a 3 point turn (or whatever it was actually doing), and that the "evidence" they have provided shows an entirely different make and model of vehicle, which clearly isn't yours. You may wish to show us a draft before you send anything. I would also keep it purely factual, and leave out any emotional comments, avoiding the temptation to rant - whilst I understand your frustration, the key to a good appeal is clarity.


I have put the key issue first - that my vehicle was not parked at the location and their evidence shows a different vehicle. But I also wanted to record the other points as secondary, so they are on the record.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The photographic evidence provided does not show my vehicle parked in any restricted or private bay. The wider images depict a different white vehicle which is not mine, which is the key issue. The only image of my vehicle is an isolated close-up of the number plate, with no visible date, time, location, signage, or surrounding context. Any appearance of my vehicle on the camera could have occurred while it was simply moving in the area, for example reversing or manoeuvring, rather than being parked in a restricted bay. This fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which requires clear evidence of a contravention in order to hold the registered keeper liable.

It should also be noted that no clear period of parking has been specified, the location stated on the notice (“Arlington Seaside, Southampton, SO14 1NB”) is inaccurate and publicly unverifiable, and the postcode provided leads to a different road not identified on the notice. These deficiencies constitute a breach of Section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires charges to be fair, transparent, and clearly described.

The operator has processed my personal data, specifically my vehicle registration, using inaccurate and incomplete evidence, which is a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR. GXS Services has also failed to provide evidence that signage was displayed, that the terms were communicated, or that any contravention occurred, contrary to the BPA / IPC Code of Practice.

Issuing a parking charge based on a vehicle that was not parked at the location alleged, supported by images of a different vehicle, an incorrect or non-existent location, and incomplete evidence, amounts to a misrepresentation in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Collectively, these failures demonstrate that the charge is fundamentally unreliable and cannot be relied upon.

GXS Services has not provided any clear or reliable evidence showing that my vehicle was parked at the location alleged, what the parking terms were at the time, or how those terms were breached. In the absence of such evidence, the charge has no lawful basis and must be cancelled. Registered keeper liability has not been established, and the charge should therefore be withdrawn immediately.

Surely your first para should include that the car wasn't actually there / parked - you have only said that their photos don't show it parked, which is not the same thing!

The vehicle was not parked in any restricted or private bay at the location alleged. The photographic evidence provided does not show my vehicle parked in any such bay, and the wider images depict a different white vehicle which is not mine. This is the key issue. The only image of my vehicle is an isolated close-up of the number plate, with no visible date, time, location, signage, or surrounding context. Any appearance of my vehicle on the camera could have occurred while it was simply moving in the area, for example reversing or manoeuvring, rather than being parked in a restricted bay. This fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

I’ve added in a sentence at the start of the first paragraph saying the car wasn’t  parked there.

Is everything else fine to send ?

Any appearance of my vehicle on the camera could have occurred while it was simply moving in the area, for example reversing or manoeuvring, rather than being parked in a restricted bay.
I'd change "could" to "must", or explain briefly what actually happened (if you know a 3 point turn took place, for example, I'd say this).

I’m not certain and can’t recall exactly what happened, so I’ve used “could”. Is that okay?

And also is the rest of the appeal okay as I need to send it off today , the 14 days are close .

In which case yes, stick to could. You are sure that the vehicle didn't spend time parked there, however, so the wording you have suggested should be fine.

Okay, thanks , I’ll stick with could. I know I’ve asked a few times, but could you please confirm if the rest of the paragraphs are okay to send? Really appreciate it.

Yes - I wouldn't get too hung up on the initial appeal, you're lucky if the parking company even bother to read it properly, let alone uphold it, but you're at least setting your stall out for the case as it progresses.

Alright I understand. I’ll submit the appeal and keep you updated on the outcome. Really appreciate your help