DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106214--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 16, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So under 5.1 I read this:
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
If they dug out more images that showed me the other side of the
gates, are they able to prove I left the premises and therefore
I agreed their terms? The reality is that didn't happen but
could the location maps of the two car parks come to my defence
here?
#Post#: 106543--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 19, 2026, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, just to recap, could we be on sticky ground with this
"leaving the premises" Code caveat to the consideration period?
And second, is it worth bothering appealing to the IAS or should
I just ride it out to the court letter?
#Post#: 106552--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 19, 2026, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You may get differing answers on this one.
Personally I'd appeal to IAS but I'd keep it dead simple.
Something along the lines of;
The driver initially pulled into the car park and was
considering his options when he noticed that they maybe a
possibility of a space in a neighbouring car park. The driver
quickly investigated this and subsequently left the car park
well within the consideration period. This is completely backed
up by the CCTV evidence.
If you give me 24 hours I can write a proper appeal for you?
#Post#: 106571--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 19, 2026, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, I would really appreciate that.
#Post#: 106624--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 20, 2026, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxx
20th January 2026.
Parking Charge Notice appeal for Sens Close, Chester. CH1 2NR.
This appeal is made as the vehicle keeper - I was not the driver
at the material time.
This appeal is made purely on the basis that no legitimate
contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.
The PCN states that the 'Period of Parking' was 2 minutes and 59
seconds - this is materially incorrect since the two ANPR images
on the PCN show that the vehicle was only on site for 2 minutes
and 59 seconds - clearly it was not parked that entire time
since it takes time to enter / park / exit etc - my point being
that the parking operator is seeking to make the period of
parking seem as long as possible and, as such, they clearly
include periods of 'non-parking' in their calculations - I
understand that IAS has a particular definition of what
constitutes 'parking'?
In this instance, the driver entered the car park, found a space
and promptly parked.
The driver then left the vehicle and moved across the car park
to examine signage which he had spotted on arrival - I
understand that there is signage in the vicinity of the gate
way? This is all well inside the Code of Conduct stated period
of consideration and is also a clear demonstration that
'consideration' was taking place.
The driver had been intending to visit a relative in a nearby
apartment block.
On moving towards the gate way, the driver observed that there
may actually be a parking space available in the nearby
apartments - the driver checked and there was a space.
The driver then observed that the only method of payment open to
him would involve the downloading of some kind of 'parking app'
- namely; The ParkPayStay App.
The driver then rejected the operators offer of contract,
returned to his vehicle and promptly exited the site - again,
well within the consideration period and, once again, the
drivers behaviour is completely inline with the behaviour of
someone who had simply rejected the offer of contract.
The driver then parked in the next door site and accessed the
apartment block.
The drivers total time on site was a mere 179 seconds - well
inside the consideration period.
The drivers movements are completely supported by the operators
own CCTV evidence.
Further point for the assessor;
After some online research, it has become apparent that 'I Park
Services Ltd' have a good number of appeals against them on
exactly the point; namely failure to apply the Code of Conduct
required period of consideration - in each instance the operator
comes up with some kind of highly subjective reasoning as to
ignore the period of consideration - the operators behaviour is
demonstrably 'predatory' in nature.
This is a clear misuse of DVLA provided Keeper data and a breach
of the operators KADOE agreement.
I expect this appeal to be upheld.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
#Post#: 106700--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 20, 2026, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much (and for pointing out it was TWO MINUTES 59
seconds, not 3 min 59 - don't know where I got that from).
You're right, they'll have all the driver's movements on camera,
including driving to the adjacent car park (the entrance is
visible in some of the ANPR images).
I'll share my full appeal here next, and then let you know what
I hear from IAS.
Thank you again!
#Post#: 106848--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 21, 2026, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is probably overkill but what the heck?
If anyone has any further advice, bits to take out or add in,
please let me know:
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxx
Parking Charge Notice appeal for Sens Close, Chester. CH1 2NR.
This appeal is made as the vehicle keeper: I was not the driver
at the material time.
This appeal is made on the basis that:
1. No legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the
parking operator.
2. The consideration period described in the IPC Code of
Practice has been ignored
In this case, which is corroborated by the operators’ ANPR
camera stills, the driver took the following actions:
1. Entered the car park, considered an appropriate space and
parked
2. Exited the car and walked to the far wall to consider the
sign and charges
3. Returned to the car to consider next steps, noticed a vacant
space in an adjacent car park
4. Walked approximately 50ft to consider the space, as it was
partially hidden by a low wall
5. Rejected the offer to park in the operator’s car park,
returned to the vehicle and left the car park
Point 1: No legitimate contract was formed between the driver
and the parking operator
The actions described above, corroborated with photographic
evidence, demonstrate that the driver was considering options
for parking and that the offer to park was rejected: no contract
between the driver and the operator was entered into.
Commentary on Clause 5 of the IPC Code of Conduct: “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.”
Point 2: The consideration period described in the IPC Code of
Practice has been ignored
The time of the driver’s presence on the operator’s site is 2
min 59 seconds. This represents a combined total of “parking”
time (IPC definition 2.19: “a vehicle entering and remaining on
controlled land” and “parked” time (a vehicle being stationary
other than in the course of driving).
Clause 5.1 of the IPC Code of Conduct (Consideration period)
states “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.”
Annex B states that the consideration period must be a minimum
of five minutes.
Clause 5.1 also states the following factors must be taken into
account: the time required for a driver to:
a) identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs
b) identify and read signs that display the parking terms and
conditions
c) identify and comply with requirements for payment
d) leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the
terms and conditions
The time the driver spent on the operator’s is considerably
lower than the minimum consideration period and their actions,
evidenced by the Operator’s cameras, follow both Code’s factors
in the Consideration period and clearly demonstrate the actions
of a party considering a contract and ultimately, rejecting that
contract.
It is clear that the Consideration Period and its requirements
described in detail in the Code of Practice have been ignored.
More broadly, online research including local media coverage has
revealed that this Operator regularly ignores the Code of
Practice at many of its sites. This systemic behaviour
represents a clear abuse of both the IPC Code and the
requirements of KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an
Event) contract which governs the use of accessing keeper data
from the DVLA. Breach of the IPC Code is a breach of KADOE,
which in turn means the Operator has also breached GDPR by
making an unlawful request for data. Separate to this appeal, I
intend to raise a complaint with the ICO on this matter.
I am dismayed by the Operator’s actions in this case and
disturbed by a pattern of behaviour that is contrary to rules
governing parking Operators.
Based on the information provided I fully expect this appeal to
be upheld.
Many thanks,
#Post#: 106911--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 22, 2026, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would send the original appeal which I set out.
The reason being; you don't want to give them room to go off
track in their appeal response. The original appeal purely
focuses on no formation of contract.
#Post#: 106998--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 22, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your guidance, how about this? Note, ParkPayStay
can be used as a web app, still need a mobile but not
necessarily a native app.
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxx
Date: xx January 2026
Parking Charge Notice Appeal – Sens Close, Chester, CH1 2NR
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver at the material
time.
This appeal is made solely on the basis that no legitimate
contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.
No Parking Event / Failure to Establish a Period of Parking
The PCN states that the “Period of Parking” was 2 minutes and 59
seconds. This is materially incorrect. The two ANPR images
provided merely show the vehicle’s time on site, not a period of
parking.
A vehicle cannot be parked for the entire duration between ANPR
entry and exit timestamps, as time is necessarily spent entering
the site, locating a space, manoeuvring, exiting a space, and
leaving the site. The operator has therefore improperly included
periods of non-parking in order to exaggerate the alleged parked
duration.
I understand that the IAS has a specific definition of what
constitutes “parking”, and the operator’s evidence does not
satisfy that definition.
Consideration Period and Rejection of Contract
In this instance, the driver entered the car park, located a
space, and parked briefly. The driver then exited the vehicle
and walked across the car park to review the signage that had
been observed on arrival, including signage located near the
gateway.
This conduct clearly falls within the mandatory consideration
period set out in the IPC Code of Conduct and demonstrates that
genuine consideration of the terms was taking place.
The driver had intended to visit a relative in a nearby
apartment block. While moving toward the gateway, the driver
noticed that there may be parking available within the apartment
complex itself. The driver checked and confirmed that a space
was available.
At this point, the driver also noted that the only available
method of payment besides cash, which the driver did not have,
required the use of a web app (www.parkpaystay.com). The driver
decided not to accept these terms, rejected the operator’s offer
of contract, returned to the vehicle, and exited the site
promptly.
This behaviour is entirely consistent with a driver who has
chosen not to accept the advertised terms and conditions.
The driver then parked at the adjacent site and accessed the
apartment block.
The total time on the operator's site was 179 seconds, well
within the Code of Conduct's required consideration period. The
driver’s movements are fully corroborated by the operator’s own
ANPR/CCTV evidence.
Predatory Conduct and Misuse of Keeper Data
In addition, online research shows that I Park Services Ltd has
been the subject of numerous appeals on this exact issue:
namely, a failure to apply the required consideration period. In
each instance, the operator appears to rely on highly subjective
and inconsistent reasoning to justify disregarding the Code of
Conduct.
Such behaviour is demonstrably predatory in nature, amounts to a
misuse of DVLA-supplied keeper data, and constitutes a breach of
the operator’s KADOE agreement.
Appeal
For the reasons set out above, no contract was formed, no valid
parking event occurred, and the PCN has been issued improperly.
I therefore expect this appeal to be upheld.
Yours faithfully,
[Registered Keeper]
#Post#: 107039--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 22, 2026, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bron74 link ---
>
> No Parking Event / Failure to Establish a Period of Parking
>
>
> [...]
>
> Consideration Period and Rejection of Contract
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure your appeal benefits from the inclusion of the
headings. As an example, the fact that the total time on site
was less than 3 minutes reinforces the point that the
consideration period was not exceeded, as that period includes
the time driving in and out of the site. I think these are
essentially different elements of the same point.
--- Quote from: Bron74 link ---
>
> I was not the driver at the material time.
>
--- End Quote ---
You have wisely not told us who was driving, but a word of
caution, you must only include this line if it is true. For
hopefully obvious reasons, lying in a written appeal would be an
incredibly bad idea.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page