DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97245--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 7, 2025, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop.
You need to post up the PCN redacting personal details - if you
want to receive proper support that is.
I can almost guarantee you are personally missing critical
details if you proceed with your appeal at this point.
What is the location of the event?
#Post#: 97254--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 7, 2025, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.
Here are the image links. Pretty sure I've redacted correctly
HTML https://ibb.co/TM1tFW5y
HTML https://ibb.co/SwxRtmzs
HTML https://ibb.co/RJ7tBSF
#Post#: 97261--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 7, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so the site itself is quite complex in terms of who owns
what. From Google / Bing it looks like Tesco have the bit at the
front and the car dealer has the bit at the back. However, the
position of the Tesco signage could easily make the driver
consider that the whole car park was for Tesco customers - that
wouldn't be unreasonable.
This is probably one of those honeytrap sites where the parking
company employees specific monitoring due to the high number of
people being caught in the same scenario - aka a money spinner.
The vehicle doesn't look like it's obstructing anything or
stopped in a hatched area - is that correct?
So technically they would have to offer the grace period.
However, in this scenario (with high monitoring) they may well
argue that a passenger leaving the vehicle constituted
acceptance by the driver - it's nonsense of course but these
people will try anything.
Question; did the passenger return to the vehicle before the
driver pulled off site?
#Post#: 97268--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 7, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not obstructing anything or stopped in a hatched area.
Yes, they have photographs of the passenger returning to the
car.
#Post#: 97272--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 7, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The passenger got out when the car was not in the monitored
area, then the driver reversed into the monitored area and the
passenger returned to the car. So there’s no view of the
passenger getting out - it could be viewed as picking someone up
#Post#: 97287--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do not think for a moment that this vexatious, bottom-dwelling
operator will change anything because you threaten to report
them for some breach or other. This will only be concluded after
they issue a county court claim and it is defended. Unlikely to
ever go as far as a hearing as it would most likely be struck
out or they’ll simply discontinue once they realise you are not
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree what can be intimidated
into paying out of ignorance and fear.
There are your appeal points:
--- Quote ---
> 1. “Consideration Period” (PPSCoP §5.1)
> The alleged “contravention period” of 12:46:33–12:48:11 is
under two minutes.
> Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17
Feb 2025 version 1.1) requires that:
>
> [indent]A consideration period of at least five minutes must
be allowed after the vehicle enters the site for the driver to
read and understand the signage and decide whether to
stay.[/indent]
>
> Since the vehicle left within this period, the driver cannot
be deemed to have accepted any terms. Issuing a PCN for conduct
that ended within that statutory period is premature and
contrary to the Code.
>
> 2. Forbidding Signage – No Contract to Non-Permit Drivers
> The sign’s key line —
>
> [indent]“Parking is permitted for pre-authorised Autodels
vehicles (valid OPS E-Permit)”
> and
> “No parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting is
permitted on the access roads...”[/indent]
>
> — clearly forbids all parking by non-permit holders. That
wording is not an offer but a prohibition. Therefore, no
contractual relationship can arise with a non-permit driver. At
most, the driver could be accused of trespass, and only the
landowner (not OPS) could bring such a claim — and then only for
nominal damages.
>
> 3. Ambiguous Site and Boundaries
> You noted this is land adjacent to a Tesco Express car park,
owned by a car dealership at the rear.
>
> Without clear demarcation or boundary signage distinguishing
the dealership’s land from Tesco’s, a driver could reasonably
assume the whole area served Tesco customers.
>
> Consumer law requires unambiguous and prominent terms; any
ambiguity is interpreted against the drafter (contra
proferentem).
>
> 4. PoFA 2012 – Superficially Compliant, but Functionally
Defective
> Although OPS issued the NtK within 14 days (25 → 30 Oct,
deemed served 3 Nov), its compliance under Schedule 4
§9(2)(a)–(f) is still questionable:
> [indent]• It states, “This charge relates to the period of
parking specified above,” yet the period cited is less than two
minutes — insufficient to evidence “parking.”
> • It does not specify the circumstances under which the charge
became payable beyond repeating the generic reason “Vehicle not
Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit).”
> • The notice implies a contractual liability, but as shown
above, no such contract can exist for non-permit drivers on
prohibitive signage.[/indent]
>
> Therefore, even if PoFA timing were met, keeper liability
cannot transfer because the underlying “parking charge” is not
validly founded.
>
> 5. Supporting Case Law and Authorities
> PCM v Bull (2016) and UKPC v Masterson (2017) – both confirm
that forbidding signage cannot create contractual liability; at
most it is trespass.
>
> Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] UKSC 67 – only applies where there
is a clear offer to park on certain terms; does not apply to
prohibitive wording.
>
> Brennan v Premier Parking (2023) – a single moment of
observation or very short stay does not constitute a “period of
parking”.
>
> 6. Summary of Strong Defence / Appeal Points
> [indent]• Contravention within 5-minute consideration period –
no breach possible.
> • No contract to non-permit drivers – forbidding signage.
> • Ambiguous land boundaries – unfair and misleading.
> • No genuine “parking period.”
> • Operator lacks standing to claim for trespass.[/indent]
>
> If the passenger returned before the vehicle departed, that
reinforces the transitory nature of the stop — the car never
“parked”. Even if the passenger did not, the total time is well
below the consideration period threshold.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97293--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 7, 2025, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.
Should I include all these points in my appeal?
#Post#: 97299--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 7, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: milkywaycartwheelbatman link ---
>
> Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.
>
> Should I include all these points in my appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
Looks like a copy and paste job to me.
Don't forget, you're making the appeal as the keeper. If you
ever need to refer to the driver then do it in the third person.
#Post#: 97307--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: milkywaycartwheelbatman link ---
>
> Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.
>
> Should I include all these points in my appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
Why wouldn't you?
#Post#: 97900--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 12, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, rejected. Not a surprise I suppose, and fails to address
most of the points in the appeal.
--- Quote ---
>
> Thank you for your appeal received on 09/11/2025 regarding the
above parking charge reference. The
> appeals team have reviewed the case and considered the
comments that you have made.
> This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the
multiple date/time stamped pictures gathered at
> the time of event, along with any applicable comments from the
enforcement team, weighted against any
> relevant and fully substantiated mitigating circumstances that
may have been supplied with this appeal.
> Reason for issue: Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit) /
Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit)
> It’s important to understand that that parking on private land
that is contracted to and managed by One
> Parking Solution (OPS) is not a right, its conditional, the
(T&C’s) apply to all users of the site and are fully
> and clearly displayed on the parking signs (“The Parking
Contract”).
> Whilst a consideration period is typically afforded to the
driver to read the parking T&C’s sign they must
> either comply with the T&C’s or remove the vehicle from site,
a grace/consideration period is not a free parking period and
will not apply if the driver is making use of the land, in
addition choosing to not read the
> T&C’s of parking is not considered a mitigating circumstance
it’s a choice.
> When the driver decided to park and/or remain on the contacted
land (“The Site”) whilst failing to comply
> with the clearly displayed T&C’s the driver automatically
entered into a contractual agreement with OPS
> and agreed to pay the amount stated on the parking contract to
The Creditor (OPS).
> At the time the vehicle was parked on site it was not
pre-authorised to do so as the vehicle wasn't
> registered on the E-Permit system.
> The appeals team are writing to inform you that the appeal has
been unsuccessful. The driver failed to
> park the vehicle in accordance with the clearly displayed
T&C’s, additionally the appellant has failed to
> substantiate and/or provide sufficient evidence to the
contrary.
> As the passenger made use of the land this Parking Charge has
been issued.
> The internal appeals team find this parking charge to be
issued correctly, we must advise you that once
> the discounted settlement rate (if applicable) passes it will
not be offered again, you have now reached the
> end of our internal appeals procedure. You may now either pay
the amount due OR appeal further with
> the Independent Appeals Service.
> If you still believe that the parking charge was issued
incorrectly, then you may appeal further to the
> Independent Appeals Service (IAS). You must submit an appeal
directly to them online using the following
> link:
HTML https://www.theias.org/appeal
> If you wish to appeal to the IAS, you should ensure to do so
within 28 days of the date of this letter.
> Please note, that should you choose to use the IAS, you will
automatically lose the opportunity to pay the
> discounted rate of the charge. If you appeal to the IAS and
then subsequently pay the charge prior to the
> appeal being determined, then the appeal will be cancelled,
and you will not be given a further opportunity
> to contest this charge.
> If you are not appealing to the IAS, you are now required to
make a payment of £60 to reach us by
> 26/11/2025 or £100 to reach us by 10/12/2025 to avoid this
charge being passed on to a debt resolution
> firm, and/or to avoid county court proceedings. Please be
advised that any further action will incur
> additional costs.
> Payments can be made using a debit or credit card calling the
automated payment line on 0333 0063
> 428 or paying online at www.oneparkingsolution.co.uk please
note OPS do not accept American
> Express (AMEX), the payee will need the parking charge
reference number and the vehicle registration
> mark (VRM) to use the digital payment services.
> Alternatively, payments can be made by cheque or postal order
made payable to One Parking Solution
> Limited, it is recommended that all post is sent recorded
delivery to the following address:
> Payment Processing Department
> One Parking Solution Limited
> 95 Arundel Road
> Worthing
> West Sussex
> BN13 3EU
> Please ensure you write the parking charge reference number
and vehicle registration clearly on the
> reverse, it is advised that you do not send cash through the
post, all postal payments that arrive be
> checked and verified against the date of sending on the
envelope.
> Please note that we are unable to take telephone conversations
regarding appeals.
> The internal appeals process is full and final, and we are
unable to issue any further correspondence
> regarding this matter
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page