DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119010--------------------------------------------------
OPS / Elm Park Car Park / second appeal (IAS) – paid parking,
alleged 47-second excess beyond grace period
DIR By: a124
Date: May 17, 2026, 10:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to set out the full
background clearly as the case is now at the second appeal stage
with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS); I’ve tried to be
brief where I can and have linked to the relevant documents for
brevity.
I’m looking for advice on a private parking charge from One
Parking Solution (OPS) at Elm Park Car Park. OPS have submitted
their prima facie case/comments and I now have the opportunity
to respond.
I would appreciate any feedback before I submit my response.
---
## 1. Initial parking event
OPS issued a Parking Charge Notice for: “Parking duration not
paid in full”
Initial Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper:
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCKwHgRPG5kTIS2tycxa5KLAQriLFzlwVSMIvvos9U5WRg?e=XfJfU4
The alleged contravention occurred at:
Elm Park Car Park
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/oWB1WUgi9yk3qWTKA
The vehicle was recorded by ANPR:
- Entry: 13:14:42
- Exit: 14:00:59
- Total recorded site duration: 46 minutes 17 seconds
A parking session was purchased via the authorised payment app:
- Paid session: 13:20–13:50
- Duration paid for: 30 minutes
- Receipt available here:
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQAD5Fh0rL9lSbzrtjevZh7_ATME2Hmjwv2fbbgb3E2PVzs<br
/>
---
## 2. Signage at the car park
Photos / documents of the signs can be found here:
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCoGDSJI6ceQKnIatWr8E_fAfcG6pEEogFc8u4TXP0IvQ8
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQAC8nmE0exzTrlOg766ITU7Acio7N0-UB26d9aH2doX6eU
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQBfGs1xrJ-gR6gcWUeK0alUAfl1UrugJcZUB33NV4WGO7M
---
## 3. Initial appeal to OPS
I appealed to OPS as the keeper. Initial appeal submitted to
OPS:
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDN03aAOzdoSIwgG8b5exPwAXG2f5QuuwXjmOal_ovVrGI?e=h7fNwH
I also used these forum posts discussing the 10-minute grace
period as guidance when preparing my appeal:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/what-is-the-legalenforceable-timing-for-the-10-minute-grace-period-10th-minute-o/.
---
## 4. OPS rejection
OPS rejected the appeal.
Their rejection letter stated the reason for issue as:
**“Parking duration not paid in full”**
They gave the contravention time as **14:00:59**, but did not
explain:
- the precise period allegedly unpaid;
- the exact second the paid session was said to have expired
- how the alleged unpaid period was calculated
- what grace period, if any, had been applied.
OPS rejection letter:
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQDNk18maCkXSpAXe0Wsv1IZAfotNMBLHWzWQT90gg9qx-s?e=gOPqNW
---
## 5. IAS appeal
I then appealed to the Independent Appeals Service.
My IAS appeal can be found here:
HTML https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQCfwsVL6j7HRLZd2Qg8GPD3AYAgIIGTbhRjhrBUXpZNknA?e=IGteKj
---
## 6. OPS comments / prima facie case
OPS have now submitted their comments.
Their key point appears to be that their payment data shows the
driver was permitted to park until 13:50:12, and the vehicle
exited at 14:00:59.
This means that, even on OPS’s own case, the vehicle was only 47
seconds beyond a 10-minute grace period.
OPS prima facie case / comments:
HTML https://1drv.ms/t/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IQD-2kIgnZzGQqlmfs-82VrMARYY3q6SnFXam9CAcInDDUA?e=6glE7b
These are the files they've uploaded:
HTML https://1drv.ms/f/c/65d99d5b27829f48/IgD0mbYfwhdXQrOp9EB7t2DhATQKs3Jjs_McOojutL6xXKk?e=l2vfAY
---
## 7. Draft response to OPS comments
This is the response I am considering submitting:
---
The operator’s prima facie case confirms that payment was made
and states that the vehicle was permitted to park until
13:50:12, with the vehicle exiting at 14:00:59. On the
operator’s own case, the alleged excess beyond a 10-minute grace
period is therefore only 47 seconds.
This is not a material breach. A grace period is intended to
allow a motorist a reasonable period to leave the site after the
paid period ends. The operator has treated 10 minutes as an
absolute hard cut-off, despite the requirement being for at
least 10 minutes and despite the alleged excess being less than
one minute.
The operator’s own signage confirms that ANPR is in use and that
parking charges are issued in accordance with the IPC Code of
Practice. The same sign also states that “parking charges will
be issued and escalated in accordance with the Code of
Practice”. Therefore, the operator must apply the Code
reasonably, including grace-period requirements.
The operator’s evidence also confirms that the site requires
payment to cover the full duration “from time of entry to time
of exit”. However, their own PopPay Plus sign says sessions must
be purchased “immediately upon arrival” and “prior to leaving
site”, and the digital payment system starts only once the
driver has accessed the app/payment process. This supports the
need for a reasonable consideration period between ANPR entry
and payment completion.
The operator’s rejection letter did not state that the paid
session expired at 13:50:12, did not explain how the alleged
unpaid period was calculated, and did not identify what grace
period had been applied. It merely stated “Parking duration not
paid in full” and gave the contravention time as 14:00:59. That
calculation has only now been clarified in the operator’s
comments.
The operator also stated in its rejection letter that my appeal
was received on 07/04/2026*, but the appeal evidence confirms it
was submitted at 22:33 on 26/03/2026, with “Keeper” selected.
OPS now accepts this was an administrative error. While that
error alone is not determinative, it further supports my
position that the operator’s handling and calculation should not
simply be accepted without scrutiny.
This case turns entirely on seconds. The operator has not
provided evidence that the ANPR cameras and payment system
clocks were synchronised to the same time source, nor evidence
of calibration, maintenance, or timestamp accuracy. Where the
alleged breach is only 47 seconds beyond the operator’s own
stated 10-minute period, strict proof of timing accuracy is
essential.
The operator’s site map shows multiple signs within the site and
confirms that the entrance sign is separate from the contract
signs and payment signage. The entrance sign itself only says
“Pay On Arrival”, “Terms & Conditions apply”, and “See signage
within the car park for App payment details”; it does not set
out the full contractual terms or the £100 charge at the point
of entry. This again reinforces that a reasonable consideration
period must be allowed.
The operator has asserted that it is instructed by the freehold
landowner, but I can see no evidence of landowner authority in
the documents provided. No contemporaneous contract, witness
statement, or written authority has been produced showing that
OPS has the right to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices at
this location in its own name. The operator is therefore put to
strict proof of its standing. A statement in its own submissions
or on its own signage is not evidence of landowner authority.
In summary, OPS’s own evidence shows that the alleged excess is
only 47 seconds after the 10-minute grace period. That is de
minimis, particularly in an ANPR-controlled site where the
recorded exit time is not the same as the actual end of parking.
The charge is therefore disproportionate, unsupported by
adequate timing evidence, and should be cancelled.
---
Any feedback on the above before I submit my response would be
appreciated.
#Post#: 122531--------------------------------------------------
Re: OPS / Elm Park Car Park / second appeal (IAS) – paid
parking, alleged 47-second excess beyond grace period
DIR By: a124
Date: June 21, 2026, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal accepted. The PCN has been cancelled. I've left the
adjudicators comments below. Hopefully it can be of benefit to
someone else.
----
"There is a requirement to pay at this site. There are two issue
here. The driver's vehicle remains for forty-six minutes but
only pays for thirty, so on the face of it that seems to be that
they have not paid for the duration of the vehicle stay.
However, the driver is entitled to time to consider the terms
and comply. They have paid after approximately five minutes. I
have seen one piece of evidence which shows the time of payment
as 13:20:12 all other show 13:20, which will be important.
The time ends at 13:50 and as this is not a short stay free to
park area, but a paid for session I am content there is a grace
period at this site. The vehicle leaves at 14:00:59. Now had it
left at 14:01 there could be no disputed that the vehicle had
left beyond the ten minute grace period. The payment refers to
the time on site so this is the relevant time for all matters,
not the time parked.
In ordinary cases we only have the time to the minute, so that
we do not know if the payment was made at 13:20:01, 13:20:59 or
somewhere between the two. So it a payment session expires at
13:50 and the vehicle leaves at 14:00, even if it is 14:00:59 I
cannot assume it is outside of the ten minute grace period.
However, here we know the vehicle payment expired at 13:50:12 so
the vehicle was outside that time. Yet that is not the question,
the question is what was the time communicated to the Appellant.
If it were 13:50, they are entitled to believe that they have to
purchase more time or leave by 14:00. They did, by the skin of
their teeth and the appeal is allowed. "
#Post#: 122532--------------------------------------------------
Re: OPS / Elm Park Car Park / second appeal (IAS) – paid
parking, alleged 47-second excess beyond grace period
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another example of the operator's confirmation of contract being
the most important factor in matters such as these.
The operator will no doubt argue that the driver was required to
pay for 'their time on site' which includes the time taken to
park up and then sort out payment - they will argue that even
with the grace period there was a period of some 6 minutes which
were not paid for.
Surprised to see this from IAS.
The operator will be fuming.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1