Hi all, unsurprisingly they have rejected my appeal and shockingly the appeal response did not address any points raised - such as no evidence of who was driving, the fact that the vehicle had been moved between the timestamped images indicating the vehicle had been moved and reparked, and POFA issues regarding a single period of parking.
I'll be appealing to the IAS but understand they are not consumer friendly. Would someone mind reading the appeal and making sure it's adequate?
"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by One Parking Solutions.
The operator has failed to establish that any contravention occurred and has failed to demonstrate compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA - specifically:
No evidence of a single period of parking
The operator relies solely upon timestamped photographs taken on separate dates 24 hours apart (07:10 14 March 2026 and 07:50 15 March 2026).
Paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires that a Notice to Keeper:
“specify… the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
The operator has failed to identify any continuous or defined period of parking. Two isolated timestamps approximately 24 hours apart do not establish a single parking period.
The operator’s own images also show the vehicle positioned differently within the bay on each date, indicating that the vehicle had been moved and later reparked rather than remaining parked continuously.
No evidence has been produced demonstrating:
continuous presence,
a continuous parking event,
or the duration of any alleged stay.
Accordingly, the operator has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability.
Ambiguous and contradictory contravention
The operator alleges:
“Exceeded maximum stay and/or returned within no return time”.
This wording is ambiguous and contradictory. It is unclear whether the operator alleges:
a single continuous overstay, or
two separate parking events involving a prohibited return.
These are materially different allegations requiring different evidence.
The operator has failed to establish which alleged contravention actually occurred.
No evidence of the same driver
The operator has not identified the driver.
A “no return” restriction can only logically apply where the same driver returns within the prohibited period. The operator has provided no evidence demonstrating this.
Instead, the operator merely assumes liability based upon the vehicle registration alone.
Failure to properly consider the appeal
In my original appeal I specifically raised:
the lack of a single defined parking period,
the differing vehicle positioning,
the lack of evidence of continuous parking,
and the Schedule 4 requirements.
The operator’s rejection failed to properly address these points and instead relied upon generic template wording asserting that a contravention occurred without evidential explanation.
The rejection provides no explanation as to:
how a continuous parking period was established,
how Schedule 4 Paragraph 8(2)(a) was satisfied,
or how the alleged contravention was determined from two isolated timestamps.
Administrative and data accuracy concerns
The operator has repeatedly issued correspondence to an address which is an amalgamation of two separate addresses and does not exist.
While not the primary ground of appeal, this raises concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the operator’s records and handling of personal data.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to:
establish a single period of parking,
prove continuous presence,
clearly identify the alleged contravention,
demonstrate compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
or provide evidence sufficient to establish keeper liability.
I respectfully request that the appeal is allowed and the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled."
Thanks again for advice provided so far.
