DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Excel’s reply is a standard stalling tactic. They are avoiding
dealing with the substance of the appeal and are trying to
manoeuvre you, the Keeper, into naming the driver. You must not
do that.
Excel are perfectly capable of processing a Keeper appeal and
they know it. The Notice to Keeper was issued under Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and includes the
statutory wording enabling them to hold the Keeper liable. They
cannot now refuse to consider the appeal unless the Keeper
identifies the driver. Nothing in PoFA or contract law requires
the Keeper to supply a driver’s name and address. Their letter
is just an attempt to flush out the driver to make enforcement
easier.
You should simply reply once, briefly, and tell Excel that the
appeal has already been submitted, that no driver identification
will be provided, and that they must make a decision on the
appeal. After that, you should ignore any further phishing
expeditions. The next meaningful document should be either a
rejection with IAS details or cancellation.
A suitable response would be along these lines:
--- Quote ---
> I am the Registered Keeper and have already submitted my
appeal. I will not be identifying the driver. You must now
consider the appeal as required by Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 and issue either a cancellation or a formal
rejection with details of the independent appeals process. Any
further demands for driver information are unreasonable and will
not be responded to.
--- End Quote ---
Once that is sent, Excel will reject it, because they always do.
The rejection will contain IAS details. The IAS rarely upholds
consumer appeals, so the next step will be deciding whether to
submit an IAS appeal for the record or simply prepare for the
long game, bearing in mind that your strongest point is that
Excel’s own payment system failed and caused the alleged breach.
All the evidence you already have will carry significant weight
if this ever reached court, which is not very likely.
Save everything from the banking app and any screenshots from
the parking app. These will matter later.
#Post#: 102228--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: DrGazza
Date: December 12, 2025, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks again b789.
It's also interesting that they keep trying to find ways to
catch you out, by sending you a pdf letter by email, but
requiring that you go through their appeals portal in the hope
that you give conflicting information.
#Post#: 103687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: DrGazza
Date: December 23, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got a reply from Excel Parking late last week. In summary: we
only logged one payment, pay up. No logs (or any other
information) provided as per the GDPR request in the original
appeal (thanks b789). Also interesting is the threat that if you
appeal to the IAS the fine will automatically go up to £100.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/6JtD4PwC/appeal-reply-44175383-pg1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/5xTHKhsL/appeal-reply-44175383-pg2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ms2Wsc2/appeal-reply-44175383-pg3.jpg
#Post#: 103694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: b789
Date: December 23, 2025, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is Excel’s formal rejection. It is a standard template and
does not mean they have properly considered the facts you
raised.
They are now asserting keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and trying to reduce the
situation to “you only paid for one hour so the stay was not
covered”. That misrepresents what actually happened and ignores
the central issue, which is the failure of their own payment
system.
You were right not to name the driver. There is no obligation on
a registered keeper to identify the driver. Excel’s earlier
letters demanding driver details were simply an attempt to make
enforcement easier for them. They are now proceeding on the
basis that they may pursue you as keeper, which they were always
going to do regardless.
Use the following as your IAS appeal:
--- Quote ---
> I am the Registered Keeper. I appeal to the IAS against Excel
Parking Services Ltd’s decision to reject my representations. I
do not admit to being the driver and I will not be identifying
the driver.
>
> 1. Preliminary matters: burden and standard of proof
> The Operator bears the burden of proving, on the balance of
probabilities, that a legally enforceable parking charge is
owed. It is not sufficient to assert that the Operator’s
internal records show “no valid payment” or “payment did not
cover the entire duration”. Where the central dispute concerns
the reliability of the Operator’s own payment systems, the
Operator must produce cogent, contemporaneous evidence, not mere
conclusions.
>
> 2. Failure to engage with the substance of the representations
> The rejection letter is essentially formulaic and fails to
grapple with the actual point advanced. The representations were
not of the “I forgot to pay” variety. The issue is that the
driver attempted to pay in good faith via the payment methods
imposed by the Operator, and that the Operator’s payment journey
(app/website/processor/session logging) failed in a manner not
apparent to the motorist at the material time. The rejection
simply restates the allegation (“payment did not cover the
entire duration”) without addressing the payment-system failure
point at all.
>
> 3. Operator’s payment system failure and its legal
consequences
> Where a trader mandates that payment must be made by
particular remote means (web/app/phone) and those means
malfunction such that payment is not properly processed or
recorded despite the consumer being led to believe that payment
has been made or a session is active, any alleged breach is
properly attributed to the trader’s system failure, not consumer
default.
>
> In those circumstances, several established principles arise:
>
> [indent](a) Consumer Rights Act 2015
> The provision of a payment facility is part of the service the
Operator supplies to consumers using the site. Under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, services must be performed with
reasonable care and skill. A system which presents a parking
session as having been created/authorised/active, but
subsequently fails to complete or record the transaction, is
prima facie inconsistent with that statutory standard. It is not
fair or reasonable to penalise a consumer for a defect in the
trader’s own service architecture.
>
> Further, any term which has the object or effect of permitting
the trader to impose a punitive charge where the consumer has
taken reasonable steps to comply but is thwarted by the trader’s
system, is liable to be regarded as unfair. The IAS is invited
to consider whether the Operator’s position, as stated in the
rejection letter, is consistent with statutory consumer
fairness, particularly where the Operator has not produced the
granular transaction/session evidence that would allow an
independent tribunal to test the reliability of the Operator’s
assertions.
>
> (b) Frustration/prevention principle
> A party cannot rely on a condition where that party’s own act
or default prevents performance. If the Operator removes or
disables on-site payment options and mandates remote payment
channels, and those channels malfunction or mislead the consumer
as to successful completion, the Operator cannot fairly
characterise the outcome as the consumer’s breach. The alleged
“failure” is the foreseeable consequence of the Operator’s own
arrangements and failures.
>
> (c) Estoppel/legitimate reliance
> If the Operator’s system represents to the motorist, by the
app interface and session status, that a parking session is
active, the motorist is entitled to rely the system. The
Operator should be estopped from asserting the contrary where
the motorist’s reliance was induced by the Operator’s own
platform. The IAS is not asked to make findings on estoppel in
the abstract; rather, the point is that the Operator must prove,
with proper evidence, that no such “active session”
representation was made and/or that it was reasonable for the
motorist to disregard it.[/indent]
>
> 4. Code compliance: consideration and grace are not optional
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a
consideration period on arrival and a grace period at the end.
This is important because it recognises that motorists need time
to read terms and, crucially, to attempt compliance with payment
requirements. Time spent attempting to pay via the Operator’s
mandated but malfunctioning payment system is time spent
attempting compliance, not evidence of avoidance.
>
> The Operator’s rejection letter does not address these
requirements at all. It simply asserts that signs are “large,
prominent and legible” and that a helpline number exists.
Neither assertion answers the question: what allowance was made
for consideration time and for payment difficulties arising from
the Operator’s systems, and how does the Operator reconcile a
punitive charge with the Code’s requirements?
>
> 5. Strict proof required: disclosure of transaction and
session evidence
> This appeal turns on objective records. The Operator is put to
strict proof, by producing unredacted contemporaneous logs, of
the following:
>
> [indent](a) Full payment processor logs for the VRM and date
in question, including authorisations, reversals, completions,
and any incomplete, failed or cancelled transactions. It is not
adequate to provide a screenshot stating “no payment”. The
adjudicator requires the underlying transaction trail.
>
> (b) Full app/session logs for the VRM and date in question,
showing whether a session was created, what start time was
recorded, what status was displayed to the user, and whether the
session was cancelled or failed at any point.
>
> (c) Evidence that the payment channels were operational at the
material time, including any incident reports, system uptime
logs, error rates, or known faults affecting motorists’ ability
to pay. If the Operator asserts that the motorist should have
used the helpline, then the Operator should produce evidence of
the helpline’s functionality and its ability to resolve payment
failures at the material time.[/indent]
>
> Absent these materials, the Operator’s case reduces to “our
system says you did not pay” whilst simultaneously refusing to
disclose the system records that would allow that assertion to
be tested. That is not a safe basis on which to uphold a charge.
>
> 6. Distinguishing ParkingEye v Beavis
> The Operator will no doubt rely implicitly on the general
proposition that a parking charge may be commercially
justifiable. However, ParkingEye v Beavis concerned clear
contractual terms and deliberate overstay in a retail car park
with a legitimate interest in space turnover. This case is
materially different because the dispute is not about a consumer
choosing to breach the terms; it is about the Operator’s own
payment systems and whether it is fair or lawful to impose a
punitive charge where the consumer attempted to comply and was
misled or thwarted by the trader’s defective service.
>
> 7. Conclusion
> The Operator has not discharged its burden of proof. Its
rejection letter fails to address the core contention: that the
alleged breach is attributable to a payment/system failure for
which the Operator is responsible, and that the consumer acted
reasonably in attempting to comply. The Operator has also failed
to provide the transaction/session evidence necessary to
determine the dispute fairly.
>
> For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed and the
charge cancelled. In the alternative, if the IAS is minded to
dismiss the appeal, I request that it first directs the Operator
to produce the strict proof evidence identified in section 5,
because without it there is no proper evidential basis to prefer
the Operator’s conclusory assertions over the objective banking
indicators consistent with an attempted payment/session
initiation.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 105437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: DrGazza
Date: January 11, 2026, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yet again many thanks for the comprehensive reply and sorry for
the belated thank you.
If you have time, a quick question. The response calls for the
PCN to be cancelled. In the appeal to IAS is there any value in
making a without prejudice offer to pay the uncollected fee as
full and final settlement even though the fault is with Excel's
own payment system?
#Post#: 105475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 12, 2026, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No - the purpose of an IAS appeal is to challenge the parking
charge, not to negotiate a settlement. You could if you wanted
to make such an offer at a later date, carefully worded
(although I'd be minded to do so on a without prejudice save as
to costs basis if you did).
Do you have written confirmation from your bank about the
pre-authorisation for the first 'amount'? If not, I'd try to get
this, as it demonstrates the technical failure (about which you
were entirely unaware until after the fact)
#Post#: 105930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Failure to purchase within time allowed
DIR By: DrGazza
Date: January 14, 2026, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK so a response from the operator with several attachments. The
majority relate to the correspondence already shown and pictures
of the terms and signage (T's & C's etc.), plus a medley of
undated photographs of the car park showing a working payment
machine.
Excel have failed to provide actual system data showing logs and
instead have made disclaiming statements as per point 3 ("we
don't operate that payment system") and point 13 ("if you don't
disclose who the driver was, we won't disclose the data").
Further they have not addresssed the point that their own
website was not operating.
Full transparency, after a lot of hassle with the bank I managed
to get time stamps for the authorisation requests, which I
included in the appeal. The first was, as they state, for £0.00
when I was setting up an account, I did immediately purchase 3
hours and the app showed the countdown (see point 9). Of course,
I have no evidence of this, but Excel's position, is that it's
their 3rd party providers problem and not theirs. I did think it
was a bit weird that I had to authorise the second payment for
£0.75, but put it down to my account being pretty finicky on
these sort of transactions. Also re. point about no evidence of
calling the helpline, the reason for not calling it is that
another driver was having exactly the same problem and they told
me not bother calling the helpline because it just went to an
automated message although I suspect were only referring to the
pay by phone number provided and not their helpline. Since I
thought I had managed to pay there, I naturally thought there
was no need to call the helpline.
It is also worth noting the contradictory statement of point 2
with that of point 11 - If I'd realised there was a mistake and
paid for 4 hours rather than additional 1 I would not have been
issued with a PCN.
Operator response to IAS appeal:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 14/01/2026 14:31:31.
The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 20/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 20/11/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
1. The Parkgate Car Park Darlington Tyre & Auto Care is private
land and motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicle
provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. The signage (supplied) in this area states: ‘24 Hour Pay Car
Park' and ‘After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum
period of 5 minutes is allowed to purchase the required parking
tariff'. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite,
including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by
the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of
Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
3. Pay by Phone facilities are available at this car park via
Connect Cashless Parking (CCP). This is third party software for
which we are not responsible.
4. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras,
which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as
vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are
compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and any
vehicle that remains on the car park and fails to purchase a
valid P&D ticket or make payment by phone is issued a Parking
Charge Notice (PCN).
5. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for
the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice
sent on 20/11/2025. We note that the appellant has also declined
to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident
in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware
that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as
such, do not require those details.
6. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and
exit from the car park and the images supplied show that the
appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 17:52:00 and exited
at 21:38:12; a parking duration of 3hr 46min 12sec.
7. Payment data supplied shows only a single valid payment of
the one hour tariff was made for the appellant's VRM on the day
in question. This is not disputed by the appellant. The data
also shows that other motorists made payments while the
appellant's vehicle was on site.
8. The supplied payment data further shows that no failed CCP
payments were recorded. This is corroborated by the appellant's
own evidence, which shows that only a zero-value authorisation
charge had been approved on the app in addition to a payment of
the one hour tariff (plus convenience charge). As such, the
evidence indicates a user rather than system error, namely a
failure to complete a purchase after approving the zero-value
authorisation charge required to register a payment card on the
app.
9. It is important to note that when payment is made via
Connect, a confirmation is issued once the payment has been
successfully processed and the parking session has commenced.
Unless and until such confirmation is received, a motorist has
no reasonable basis to assume they are authorised to park.
10. Where a motorist is unable to make payment using the
available payment methods, or were at all unsure whether a
payment had been made, a helpline is provided for assistance.
The appellant has provided no evidence of calling the helpline.
11. The appellant's underpayment does not mitigate their
liability for the charge. A consideration period is provided to
allow motorists to read the Terms and Conditions and either make
a valid payment or leave site. However, in accordance with the
recent changes to the IPC Single Code of Practice relating to
ANPR-operated car parks, had a valid payment been made prior to
the vehicle exiting the car park, covering the full duration of
the stay, no Parking Charge would have been issued. As confirmed
by the supplied payment data, no such payment was made on the
date in question and no evidence has been provided showing that
the motorist was unable to pay the required tariff.
12. The contract between the appellant and EPS was formed when
the motorist entered the car park. When entering this private
land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is
the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any
clearly displayed terms and conditions. We reiterate that the
appellant had the opportunity to leave the site if they could
not comply with the terms and conditions.
13. We would note that the appellant has no entitlement to the
data they have requested as it is not personal to themselves. As
this data is private and/or commercially sensitive, and/or
relates to other motorists and is ultimately irrelevant with
regards to the motorist's liability for a charge, it will not be
supplied.
14. The charge is in no way punitive. Any motorist who
familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be
notified of the relevant charges. By accepting the terms and
conditions of parking on this private land, a motorist freely
accepts to pay the advertised charge in event of breaching the
contract.
15. The adjudicator will appreciate that no motorist is entitled
to park for free, particularly when payment facilities were
available and operational. We maintain that the Terms and
Conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the
appellant's attention at the time of parking.
16. The appellant became liable for the charge as per the Terms
and Conditions displayed by failing to make a valid payment to
cover the entire duration of their stay.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page