DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97057--------------------------------------------------
One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-perm
it) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: milkywaycartwheelbatman Date: November 6, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Posting on behalf of RK.
This occurred on private land adjacent to a Tesco Express car
park. No marked bays. Owner is a car dealership on the same
complex as the Tesco express.
Driver pulled into the private parking area, but did not exit
the vehicle. RK went into Tesco Express.
Date of sending: 30th October
Date of arrival: 5th November
Contravention date: 25th October
Contravention period: from 12:46:33 to 12:48:11.
Reason: Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit)
"This charge relate to the period of parking specified above,
having been incurred for the reason(s) stated. The liability of
the charge was brought to the attention of the driver by clear
signage in and around the contravention location at the time of
parking on private land."
The signage states (among other things)...
"Important contractual information (underlined)
No parking, loading/unloading, idling or waiting is permitted on
the access roads, pavements or hatched areas at any time.
If you are unsure of the terms and conditions, please refrain
from parking and seek further guidance from OPS.
"
I can provide the full details if necessary but my query largely
revolves around two aspects of this, my understanding of which
I'd like to clarify:
1. The main point is that I understand there should be a
"consideration period" of 5 minutes to allow the driver to
determine whether or not to agree to the terms. Since the
contravention period ends within 5 minutes of the start time,
then there can be no assertion as to whether or not the driver
agreed to the terms.
2. If the driver did not leave the vehicle then they cannot be
considered to have parked. Regardless of whether the contractual
information includes "idling", the driver would still have to
have been idling for 5 minutes to be considered to have agreed
to the terms.
If there are fairly obvious grounds for appeal on this basis
then I will pass this on to the RK, but otherwise there is no
desire to put endless hours into avoiding this charge.
#Post#: 97058--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: jfollows Date: November 6, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would not go with your second point. Stopping but not leaving
the car can well be described as parking. Why not? But the first
point seems good.
#Post#: 97059--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: milkywaycartwheelbatman Date: November 6, 2025, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
> Stopping but not leaving the car can well be described as
parking
Sure but I read there is legal precedent for this not being the
case.
HTML https://contestorlegal.co.uk/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking/
#Post#: 97060--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: jfollows Date: November 6, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good luck with that!
Stopping for two minutes to unload may not be parking, but I
don’t see how that transfers to your case.
#Post#: 97062--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: milkywaycartwheelbatman Date: November 6, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, fair enough.
But the consideration period is reasonable grounds for appeal?
#Post#: 97064--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: DWMB2 Date: November 6, 2025, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Yamba has a good record against parking companies, but
he can be prone to rather dramatic language in his case
summaries... I'm not sure a County Court case (which does not
set precedent) where, from what is written, the defendant relied
on the well-established loading defence based on Jopson v
Homeguard, can be taken to be "defining the true meaning of
parking".
The consideration period argument is a strong one - a motorist
cannot be bound by terms he has not been given a fair
opportunity to consider.
#Post#: 97135--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: b789 Date: November 6, 2025, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It would help if you were to show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
you received (both sides). Do NOT redact any dates or times on
it.
OPS is a notorious, bottom-dwelling firm of ex-clampers who are
out to scam as many motorists as they can.
The first point about the "period of parking" is certainly
enough to argue that no contract was formed with the driver. The
PPSCoP mandates in section 5.1 the following:
[quote]Duration of parking period
05
Duration of parking period
COMMENTARY ON CLAUSE 5
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. The amount of time needed
varies according to the nature and size of the premises, and in
car parks open to the public includes the time needed to find
and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should
the driver decide not to park, hence the need for a
consideration period before the contract between the driver and
the parking operator is made. It is also a requirement to allow
a grace period in addition to the parking period where parking
is permitted, and all terms and conditions have been complied
with.
5.1. Consideration period
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. The
following factors should be taken into account:
[indent]a) the time required for a driver to identify and access
a parking bay appropriate to their needs;
[i]NOTE 1: For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking
bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another
vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the
VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc.[/I]
b) the time required for a driver to identify and read signs
that display the parking terms and conditions, or the
consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not
invited;
c) the time required for a driver to identify and comply with
requirements for payment;
d) the time required for a driver to leave the controlled land
if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions;
e) the impact of the layout of the controlled land on 5.1a) to
5.1d);
f) the impact of the number of vehicles accessing the car park
on 5.1a) to 5.1d); and g) the impact of the volume of traffic
within the controlled land on 5.1a) to 5.1d).
[i]NOTE 2: The consideration period may end earlier than the
times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the
driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether
or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be
evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the
premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining on
the controlled land for more than 5 minutes. See Annex B Table
B.1[/I][/indent][/quote]
By issuing a PCN without allowing the minimum consideration
period of 5 minutes, they have not evidenced that a contract was
formed with the driver.
Also, you should, if possible, get some photos of the signs that
purport to form the contractual terms and conditions and the
general layout of the car park and the prominence of the signs.
#Post#: 97182--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: InterCity125 Date: November 7, 2025, 3:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK says, "No parking, loading/unloading, idling or waiting
is permitted on the access roads, pavements or hatched areas at
any time."
So a further possible defence would revolve around exactly where
the driver stopped - if it was in the normal parking area then
the NtK is groundless.
#Post#: 97226--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: b789 Date: November 7, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The alleged contravention is: “Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No
E-Permit)”.:If you intend to rely on Jopson, what was the
“loading or unloading” event?
It would help if you could show the actual wording on the sign,
not just a selective section of it. Without this, it is not
possible to determine whether the sign was even capable of
forming a contract.
The wording you have described, in and of itself, may be
prohibitive, but there is more to that would provide context.
For example, if the location is ONLY for permit holders, then a
non-permit holder cannot be bound by any terms and could only be
liable for trespass, which OPS cannot sue because they are not
the landowner, and even if they could, any amount would be
negligible.
#Post#: 97243--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-
permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
By: milkywaycartwheelbatman Date: November 7, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for the contributions so far.
The general consensus seems to be that the consideration period
is enough to go on. I've reviewed all photos captured by the
operator and they cover a period of 3m 7s. I don't understand
how those timestamps relate to the period given in the NtK, but
they still fall well within the 5m consideration period, so I'm
happy to proceed with the appeal on that basis.
My final question relates to whether or not I should mention the
consequences to the operator of not following the code of
practice, including:
* The requirement to notify the ATA of any breaches of the code
of practice
* The potential for sanction points for non-compliance
* Perhaps the fact that I could complain to the ATA in the case
that the appeal is not successful
My feeling is that this could go either way - it could add
credibility to the appeal, or it could get their backs up.
Or maybe I should just complain?
[quote]Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it
considers to be or
include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the
parking operator
must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the
timescales in
Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and
until it is clear
that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the
complainant informs the
parking operator that they do not wish it to be so
handled[/quote]
EDIT: Hmm - confused a bit now because the NtK says "If you wish
to challenge the validity of this charge then you must use the
Appeals Procedure"
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page