Author Topic: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park  (Read 793 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi all,

Looking for advice on how best to handle a parking charge notice received from Premier Park for an alleged overstay at Purley Cross Retail Park (pics of letter linked below).

The PCN alleges that the driver overstayed the permitted parking time by 16 minutes, but this only occurred because the car park was completely gridlocked. The driver returned to the car in good time and spent well over an hour sitting in the vehicle attempting to leave, barely moving due to congestion throughout the whole car park.

The driver was not parked or shopping, they were actively trying to exit the car park the entire time, long before the 3 hour limit was up. However, a good chunk of time the driver was sat in the car in the parking spot because the congestion was so bad that the driver could not even exit the spot. The driver did eventually get out of the spot but then equally spent an inordinate amount of time queueing to leave the car park.

The driver took a short video at the time showing the gridlock and lack of movement, as they were concerned they might be penalised despite having no way to leave sooner.

The PCN appears to be based solely on ANPR entry/exit times to the site itself rather than the parking spot.

The driver sent the following complaint to the retail park management company, Green & Partners, yesterday:

Quote
I am writing to you as the landowner/managing agent for Purley Cross Retail Park to request cancellation of a parking charge notice issued unfairly.

The alleged overstay occurred only because the car park was completely gridlocked. The driver returned to the vehicle in good time and then spent well over an hour attempting to exit, with traffic barely moving due to severe congestion throughout the site.

The vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted period. The driver was in the vehicle and actively attempting to leave, but was prevented from doing so by congestion within the car park. The charge has been issued purely on ANPR entry/exit timestamps, which do not reflect this reality.

Video evidence recorded at the time showing the gridlock is available if required.

I ask that you instruct your parking contractor to cancel this PCN. I would appreciate written confirmation once this has been done.

This morning, the driver received the below reply:

Quote
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with us.  You will to speak to the company who issued you the ticket.

The driver is now seeking advice on what the next steps should be. Escalate with the management company? Appeal the PCN formally with the PPC? If the latter, should any of the below be focused on in the appeal:
  • No actual parking took place during the overstay
  • ANPR misuse (exit time ≠ parking time)
  • Frustration of contract / impossibility to comply

Something to note: Unfortunately the original PCN was sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who filled out a Transfer of Liability form naming the driver. So, the driver has been named to the issuer of the PCN. The original issue date was 24th December.

Thanks in advance for any help.
Pics of PCN:
Front: https://ibb.co/Sw7SbGsy
Rear: https://ibb.co/mCMWByPb
« Last Edit: January 12, 2026, 08:39:50 pm by SpacedEngineer »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


You’re already discussing this on MSE, aren’t you?

Yes, I was advised to post here too

It seems to me that you don’t need to over-complicate this, you appeal as the driver on the points you stated, that essentially you returned to your car and were prepared to leave well within time, but were prevented from doing so.
These companies have a habit of not caring about the truth but just the money, so if your appeal is rejected you will follow up with POPLA including a still from your video. If POPLA doesn’t uphold your appeal you wait for them to start the court process which they generally use to frighten you and discontinue eventually. It’s a well trodden path.

Hi all. As expected, Premier Park has rejected my appeal. Here is their response, where they do not really address any of my points at all.

Quote
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;
                                                                                                                       
Whilst we note your comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the maximum stay period within this car park is 3 hours. As your vehicle was on site for 3 hours and 16 minutes, this was an overstay of 16 minutes. The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions of parking, including the maximum stay period. There are no exceptions to these terms and we can therefore confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred in to your name, as the Driver of the vehicle. This is for your records only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to the full amount of £100.00.

We have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both:

You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options;

Call us on: 01302 513232
Pay online: www.pcnpayments.com
Send a postal order: Premier Park Ltd, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG

Or, you can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected or you withdraw your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available (if applicable) and the full amount of the PCN will become due. Please note, if you pay the PCN prior to appealing to POPLA, your appeal will be withdrawn as you will have accepted liability in full.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure your POPLA Reference Number, as noted above, is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this email to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.

This was my appeal:
Quote
I dispute this Parking Charge Notice in full as it is founded on a false premise: no parking breach occurred.

The location offers three hours of free parking. The vehicle did not remain parked beyond that period. The driver returned to the vehicle over an hour before the free parking allowance had expired and attempted to leave the site. However, the entire retail park was gridlocked, with congestion throughout the internal road layout and at the exits, preventing vehicles from leaving.

The vehicle was therefore not parked beyond the permitted time. It was occupied and in transit, delayed solely by traffic conditions within the site. Time spent stationary in a queue while attempting to exit a congested car park does not constitute “parking”.

Your charge relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. These do not measure parking time and do not account for unavoidable congestion preventing egress. Any interpretation that treats forced exit-queue time as chargeable parking time is unreasonable and unsustainable.

The delay was entirely outside the driver’s control and arose from conditions within the car park itself. The driver had no ability to influence the pace of traffic or leave sooner.

For these reasons, I require that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled. No payment will be made.

With my appeal, I sent screenshots of the video I took at the time showing the extent of the gridlock, since they didn't accept video files.

My next step is to escalate the appeal with POPLA. Any tips or things I need to know?

Same appeal points to POPLA.

Point out that 'time on site' is not 'period of parking'.

Did you have a picture of the T&Cs we can look at?

Sorry for the delay. I've just returned to the car park to snap a pic of the sign (see link below). Anything here I should mention in my POPLA appeal? Thanks in advance!

https://imgbox.com/E6xIie6K
« Last Edit: Today at 01:10:31 am by SpacedEngineer »

Yes - the sign uses the term, "Maximum stay 3 hours".

The term is therefore open to considerable interpretation in the circumstances.

As a driver you can reasonably interpret the sign as meaning '3 hours parking' whereas the parking operator is clearly using the argument of '3 hours time on site' (due to their use of ANPR camaras at the entrance / exit).

This clearly falls into the realms of the legal principle of Contra proferentem.

Suggest that you do a quick search for 'Contra proferentem' to familiarise yourself with the principle - it's actually straight forward.

So, in your case, the operator states that the maximum stay is 3 hours - they are the party setting out the ambiguous term which means that you are the party who can reasonably interpret that term - your interpretation is that the term means 3 hours parking and not 3 hours on site.

Under Contra proferentem your interpretation should prevail in the dispute since your interpretation is justifiable in the specific circumstances.


Suggest that you draw up your POPLA appeal based on your original appeal and then we can add an additional paragraph setting out the above.


It’s an utterly ludicrous PCN, I agree with @InterCity125, there’s no way you’re going to end up paying a penny but they force you to jump through hoops for no justifiable reason in case you accidentally happen to provide them with your credit card details.

It’s not surprising but it’s just another example of a disreputable industry run by cowboys who state untruths as facts and have no regard for the truth.

You can only laugh when they say they have “carefully considered your appeal”.

Yes - the sign uses the term, "Maximum stay 3 hours".

The term is therefore open to considerable interpretation in the circumstances.

As a driver you can reasonably interpret the sign as meaning '3 hours parking' whereas the parking operator is clearly using the argument of '3 hours time on site' (due to their use of ANPR camaras at the entrance / exit).

This clearly falls into the realms of the legal principle of Contra proferentem.

Suggest that you do a quick search for 'Contra proferentem' to familiarise yourself with the principle - it's actually straight forward.

So, in your case, the operator states that the maximum stay is 3 hours - they are the party setting out the ambiguous term which means that you are the party who can reasonably interpret that term - your interpretation is that the term means 3 hours parking and not 3 hours on site.

Under Contra proferentem your interpretation should prevail in the dispute since your interpretation is justifiable in the specific circumstances.


Suggest that you draw up your POPLA appeal based on your original appeal and then we can add an additional paragraph setting out the above.

Thanks so much for this info. Here is my first draft of an appeal. Please do let me know if anything should be changed or added.

Quote
I submit this appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by Premier Park. I dispute the charge in full. No parking breach occurred. The driver returned to the vehicle well before the three-hour free parking period expired and attempted to leave the site, but was prevented from doing so by extreme congestion affecting the entire retail park. The vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted time; it was occupied and attempting to exit. The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which do not measure parking time and do not account for unavoidable gridlock within the site. Contemporaneous video evidence is provided to support this appeal.

1. No Parking Breach Occurred

I dispute this Parking Charge Notice in full because no parking breach occurred.

The location offers three hours of free parking. The vehicle did not remain parked beyond that period. The driver returned to the vehicle well over an hour before the three-hour free parking allowance expired. The engine was started and the driver immediately attempted to leave the site, but the entire retail park was completely gridlocked. Congestion extended throughout the internal road layout and across all lanes and exit routes. Vehicles were unable to move despite drivers being present and actively attempting to exit.

The vehicle was therefore not parked beyond the permitted time. It was occupied, engine running, and attempting to leave the site. Time spent stationary in a traffic queue while trying to exit a congested retail park does not constitute “parking”. At no stage did the driver choose to remain parked beyond the free allowance. The vehicle was physically prevented from exiting through no fault of the driver.

2. ANPR Entry/Exit Timestamps Do Not Measure Parking Time

The operator’s case relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. ANPR records the time a vehicle enters and leaves the site perimeter. It does not record:

• when the vehicle parked in a bay
• when the vehicle vacated the bay
• whether the vehicle was in transit
• whether the vehicle was trapped in congestion

The operator has chosen a monitoring method that measures “time on site”, not “time parked”.

In this case, the ANPR system simply recorded that the vehicle was unable to exit due to severe congestion. It does not and cannot establish that the vehicle remained parked beyond the permitted period. Treating unavoidable exit-queue time as if it were deliberate parking time is fundamentally flawed and does not demonstrate any breach of the stated maximum stay.

3. Extreme Site-Wide Congestion – Video Evidence

Contemporaneous video evidence was taken at the time and is provided to POPLA. The footage clearly shows:

• Extreme and unnavigable congestion extending throughout all internal lanes.
• Vehicles stationary across the entire site.
• No cars moving.
• The vehicle positioned in a traffic lane, not in a parking bay.
• The driver queuing in a line of traffic, completely unable to leave.

The vehicle was not parked. It was in a live traffic lane, in a queue, with the engine running, awaiting the opportunity to exit. The driver had no ability to influence the pace of traffic and no alternative exit route available. The delay was entirely outside the driver’s control and arose solely from conditions within the site itself.

4. Frustration of Contract / Impossibility of Performance

Even if the operator asserts that “maximum stay” refers to total time on site (which is disputed), performance of the alleged contract was rendered impossible.

The driver attempted to leave before the expiry of the free parking period. Timely exit was prevented by extreme congestion within the retail park.

Where performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond a party’s control, the contract is frustrated. The driver cannot be held liable for failing to leave within three hours when exit was physically prevented by conditions on the operator’s own site.

The operator cannot monetise congestion that occurs within its own managed premises and is outside the motorist’s control.

5. Ambiguity of “Maximum Stay 3 Hours” – Interpretation in Favour of the Consumer

The signage states: “Maximum stay 3 hours”. It does not define whether this refers to 3 hours parked in a bay, or 3 hours total time on site measured by ANPR. These are materially different interpretations.

A reasonable motorist would interpret “maximum stay” as referring to parking time — the period during which the vehicle occupies a bay.

The signage does not clearly warn motorists that unavoidable time spent queuing to exit due to site-wide congestion will be treated as chargeable parking time.

Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted it. Any ambiguity regarding the meaning of “maximum stay” must therefore be resolved in favour of the consumer.

In this case, the reasonable interpretation is that the maximum stay refers to parking time. The vehicle did not remain parked beyond three hours.

Like Like x 1 Optimistic Optimistic x 1 View List

Quote
Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted it.
Belt and braces perhaps, but you could quote an authority for this so that it doesn't seem like you're just stating your opinion. The POPLA assessor should know the legal basis of this already, but there are a lot of things assessors should know, but either don't, or choose to ignore.

This is an example of Contra proferentem or "interpretation against the draughtsman" - it's covered under Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

Quote
Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted it.
Belt and braces perhaps, but you could quote an authority for this so that it doesn't seem like you're just stating your opinion. The POPLA assessor should know the legal basis of this already, but there are a lot of things assessors should know, but either don't, or choose to ignore.

This is an example of Contra proferentem or "interpretation against the draughtsman" - it's covered under Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."
Super helpful, thanks! Will incorporate it into my appeal.