DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107049--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 23, 2026, 2:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, that could be my mistake re driver - I thought that
earlier in the thread it had been stated that the keeper was not
the driver.
Just to be clear - do not lie at any stage.
#Post#: 107121--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 23, 2026, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Noted about headings and driver/keeper. I'll remove the former
and confirm the latter and send the appeal now. Again, thank you
so much.
#Post#: 108159--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: January 31, 2026, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
RESULT! :) "Operator conceded this appeal due to mitigation", it
says on the IAS appeals portal.
The email notification from IAS went EVEN FURTHER and said "Due
to further information I Park Services LTD has confirmed they
will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has
been cancelled."
That's it by way of explanation (ie no explanation at all). No
next steps, no redress, no apology or note from the operator
(not that I particularly want one), nothing. I should be
grateful, I suppose.
As far as I can tell, the operator did not submit their case
within the IAS's five working day period. I got the IAS email at
10.28pm which, give or take 1 hour, is exactly five working days
since I appealed. Either people at IAS are working for the
CONSUMER GOOD at 10.28pm on a Friday, or it's an automated email
triggered by the lack of the operator's case. I'm leaning
towards the latter.
Now I could walk away a happy camper, but it begs the question
"what further information?". They had it from the start.
It's obvious (to me) there is little - if any - human
involvement in this. It's mostly automated. Their cameras fire
alerts. They'll use their DVLA license to get registered keeper
details, then mail-merge and auto-reply the rest. They took
SEVEN MINUTES to reject my initial appeal. Maybe the IAS step
takes more effort on their part and they can't keep up with
their own scam. I hope so.
If that's the case, the IAS appeal is worth taking, regardless
of their own joke status.
Anyway, is it worth raising the issue about the very likely
breach of GDPR? They're clearly abusing whatever rules there are
around the use of accessing DVLA data? Is it worth asking "what
new information" changed their minds, even though there were no
"minds" on this to begin with?
Or should I just conclude by saying a big THANK YOU to the
responders and experts on here - and indeed others fighting
their own cases - for inspiring the fight and steering me
through? I applaud your patience, kindess and commitment.
Let me know if you want me to upload a copy of the IAS email or
the (very brief) update on my appeal portal. I've literally
copied all it said at the start of this message. And if you'd
like me to keep pushing with reference to GDPR or anything else,
I'm happy to keep up the good fight.
#Post#: 108219--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 1, 2026, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much all you spell out is correct.
The parking operator has a history of predatory behaviour.
This location is used as a car park for a doctors surgery so you
can imagine the vulnerability of certain patients who were
previously allowed to park for free when using the surgery.
In terms of 'human involvement' - yes - the operator should be
checking all details before they even request Keeper details
from the DVLA - in your case they should have immediately
applied the 'consideration rule' and never requested keeper
details.
You gave them a second chance at appeal which they also
declined.
You can see the pattern?
You should make a complaint to the DVLA highlighting the misuse
of your personal data and the failure of the parking operator to
follow even the most simple of Code of Practice rules.
#Post#: 108223--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 1, 2026, 3:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you complained to the operator yet? (Separate to the
appeal)
If not, I'd complain to them and then the IPC before the DVLA.
Not because they'll do anything, but because if you don't,
DVLA's response will be "complain to the IPC first"
#Post#: 108253--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 2 mins 59
seconds
DIR By: Bron74
Date: February 1, 2026, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sounds good, thank you.
How does this read for a complaint to the car park operator?
Dear Sirs,
I am pleased to note via the IAS that you have dropped the above
charge, though I am disappointed you have chosen not to contact
me directly.
I wish to complain that you wrongly determined a contract was
entered into between I Park Services Ltd and the driver based on
both the evidence of your own site cameras and the requirements
of the IPC Code of Practice.
In pursuing the charge and rejecting the initial appeal, I
contend you wilfully ignored:
the evidence of your ANPR site cameras which clearly captured
the driver’s actions consistent with the act of “consideration”
the requirements of the IPC Code’s Consideration Period (5.1)
which states drivers have a minimum of five minutes for
consideration, when you recorded time on site as being two
minutes and 59 seconds, of which the time actually parked was
less
Based on the above, it is clear you breached the terms of use
for obtaining registered keeper data from the DVLA via KADOE.
This further constitutes a breach of the GDPR regulations.
Unless you can adequately explain why you believed a contract
was formed between driver and I Park Services Ltd in this
instance, I will raise my complaint with the DVLA, request that
you be stripped of your KADOE license and be reported to the ICO
for breach of GDPR regulations.
I look forward to hearing from you.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page