URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 105584--------------------------------------------------
       Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park PCN,
        Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: SpacedEngineer Date: January 12, 2026, 2:25 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all,
       Looking for advice on how best to handle a parking charge notice
       received from Premier Park for an alleged overstay at Purley
       Cross Retail Park (pics of letter linked below).
       The PCN alleges that the driver overstayed the permitted parking
       time by 16 minutes, but this only occurred because the car park
       was completely gridlocked. The driver returned to the car in
       good time and spent well over an hour sitting in the vehicle
       attempting to leave, barely moving due to congestion throughout
       the whole car park.
       The driver was not parked or shopping, they were actively trying
       to exit the car park the entire time, long before the 3 hour
       limit was up. However, a good chunk of time the driver was sat
       in the car in the parking spot because the congestion was so bad
       that the driver could not even exit the spot. The driver did
       eventually get out of the spot but then equally spent an
       inordinate amount of time queueing to leave the car park.
       The driver took a short video at the time showing the gridlock
       and lack of movement, as they were concerned they might be
       penalised despite having no way to leave sooner.
       The PCN appears to be based solely on ANPR entry/exit times to
       the site itself rather than the parking spot.
       The driver sent the following complaint to the retail park
       management company, Green & Partners, yesterday:
       [quote]I am writing to you as the landowner/managing agent for
       Purley Cross Retail Park to request cancellation of a parking
       charge notice issued unfairly.
       The alleged overstay occurred only because the car park was
       completely gridlocked. The driver returned to the vehicle in
       good time and then spent well over an hour attempting to exit,
       with traffic barely moving due to severe congestion throughout
       the site.
       The vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted period. The
       driver was in the vehicle and actively attempting to leave, but
       was prevented from doing so by congestion within the car park.
       The charge has been issued purely on ANPR entry/exit timestamps,
       which do not reflect this reality.
       Video evidence recorded at the time showing the gridlock is
       available if required.
       I ask that you instruct your parking contractor to cancel this
       PCN. I would appreciate written confirmation once this has been
       done.[/quote]
       This morning, the driver received the below reply:
       [quote]Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with us.  You will
       to speak to the company who issued you the ticket.[/quote]
       The driver is now seeking advice on what the next steps should
       be. Escalate with the management company? Appeal the PCN
       formally with the PPC? If the latter, should any of the below be
       focused on in the appeal:
       [list]
       [li]No actual parking took place during the overstay[/li]
       [li]ANPR misuse (exit time ≠ parking time)[/li]
       [li]Frustration of contract / impossibility to comply[/li]
       [/list]
       Something to note: Unfortunately the original PCN was sent to
       the registered keeper of the vehicle, who filled out a Transfer
       of Liability form naming the driver. So, the driver has been
       named to the issuer of the PCN. The original issue date was 24th
       December.
       Thanks in advance for any help.
       Pics of PCN:
       Front:
  HTML https://ibb.co/Sw7SbGsy
       Rear:
  HTML https://ibb.co/mCMWByPb
       #Post#: 105622--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: jfollows Date: January 13, 2026, 1:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You’re already discussing this on MSE, aren’t you?
       #Post#: 105623--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: SpacedEngineer Date: January 13, 2026, 1:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes, I was advised to post here too
       #Post#: 105624--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: jfollows Date: January 13, 2026, 2:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It seems to me that you don’t need to over-complicate this, you
       appeal as the driver on the points you stated, that essentially
       you returned to your car and were prepared to leave well within
       time, but were prevented from doing so.
       These companies have a habit of not caring about the truth but
       just the money, so if your appeal is rejected you will follow up
       with POPLA including a still from your video. If POPLA doesn’t
       uphold your appeal you wait for them to start the court process
       which they generally use to frighten you and discontinue
       eventually. It’s a well trodden path.
       #Post#: 109933--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: SpacedEngineer Date: February 16, 2026, 6:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all. As expected, Premier Park has rejected my appeal. Here
       is their response, where they do not really address any of my
       points at all.
       [quote]Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking
       Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal,
       however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the
       following reason;
       
       
       Whilst we note your comments and reason for appeal, we can
       confirm that the maximum stay period within this car park is 3
       hours. As your vehicle was on site for 3 hours and 16 minutes,
       this was an overstay of 16 minutes. The signage on site clearly
       sets out the terms and conditions of parking, including the
       maximum stay period. There are no exceptions to these terms and
       we can therefore confirm that this PCN has been issued
       correctly.
       Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and
       sent to you, as the liability has been transferred in to your
       name, as the Driver of the vehicle. This is for your records
       only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or
       transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your
       new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If
       payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to
       the full amount of £100.00.
       We have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall
       under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single
       Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided,
       we will deem this to be our final decision.
       You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure
       and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or
       appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both:
       You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the
       following payment options;
       Call us on: 01302 513232
       Pay online: www.pcnpayments.com
       Send a postal order: Premier Park Ltd, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1
       9JG
       Or, you can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA
       (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA reference code
       provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to
       POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected or you withdraw
       your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no
       longer be available (if applicable) and the full amount of the
       PCN will become due. Please note, if you pay the PCN prior to
       appealing to POPLA, your appeal will be withdrawn as you will
       have accepted liability in full.
       If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their
       website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how to appeal
       (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be
       found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us
       for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please
       ensure your POPLA Reference Number, as noted above, is quoted on
       all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of
       this email to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA
       we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will
       not increase until the appeal has been determined.
       By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
       Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative
       dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with
       your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
       alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish
       to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
       If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within
       the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our
       appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs
       associated with this process will be added to the amount
       outstanding.[/quote]
       This was my appeal:
       [quote]I dispute this Parking Charge Notice in full as it is
       founded on a false premise: no parking breach occurred.
       The location offers three hours of free parking. The vehicle did
       not remain parked beyond that period. The driver returned to the
       vehicle over an hour before the free parking allowance had
       expired and attempted to leave the site. However, the entire
       retail park was gridlocked, with congestion throughout the
       internal road layout and at the exits, preventing vehicles from
       leaving.
       The vehicle was therefore not parked beyond the permitted time.
       It was occupied and in transit, delayed solely by traffic
       conditions within the site. Time spent stationary in a queue
       while attempting to exit a congested car park does not
       constitute “parking”.
       Your charge relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps.
       These do not measure parking time and do not account for
       unavoidable congestion preventing egress. Any interpretation
       that treats forced exit-queue time as chargeable parking time is
       unreasonable and unsustainable.
       The delay was entirely outside the driver’s control and arose
       from conditions within the car park itself. The driver had no
       ability to influence the pace of traffic or leave sooner.
       For these reasons, I require that this Parking Charge Notice is
       cancelled. No payment will be made.[/quote]
       With my appeal, I sent screenshots of the video I took at the
       time showing the extent of the gridlock, since they didn't
       accept video files.
       My next step is to escalate the appeal with POPLA. Any tips or
       things I need to know?
       #Post#: 109940--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: InterCity125 Date: February 16, 2026, 8:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Same appeal points to POPLA.
       Point out that 'time on site' is not 'period of parking'.
       Did you have a picture of the T&Cs we can look at?
       #Post#: 110589--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: SpacedEngineer Date: February 21, 2026, 10:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry for the delay. I've just returned to the car park to snap
       a pic of the sign (see link below). Anything here I should
       mention in my POPLA appeal? Thanks in advance!
  HTML https://imgbox.com/E6xIie6K
       #Post#: 110638--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: InterCity125 Date: February 22, 2026, 2:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes - the sign uses the term, "Maximum stay 3 hours".
       The term is therefore open to considerable interpretation in the
       circumstances.
       As a driver you can reasonably interpret the sign as meaning '3
       hours parking' whereas the parking operator is clearly using the
       argument of '3 hours time on site' (due to their use of ANPR
       camaras at the entrance / exit).
       This clearly falls into the realms of the legal principle of
       Contra proferentem.
       Suggest that you do a quick search for 'Contra proferentem' to
       familiarise yourself with the principle - it's actually straight
       forward.
       So, in your case, the operator states that the maximum stay is 3
       hours - they are the party setting out the ambiguous term which
       means that you are the party who can reasonably interpret that
       term - your interpretation is that the term means 3 hours
       parking and not 3 hours on site.
       Under Contra proferentem your interpretation should prevail in
       the dispute since your interpretation is justifiable in the
       specific circumstances.
       Suggest that you draw up your POPLA appeal based on your
       original appeal and then we can add an additional paragraph
       setting out the above.
       #Post#: 110639--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: jfollows Date: February 22, 2026, 3:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It’s an utterly ludicrous PCN, I agree with
       [member=6750]InterCity125[/member], there’s no way you’re going
       to end up paying a penny but they force you to jump through
       hoops for no justifiable reason in case you accidentally happen
       to provide them with your credit card details.
       It’s not surprising but it’s just another example of a
       disreputable industry run by cowboys who state untruths as facts
       and have no regard for the truth.
       You can only laugh when they say they have “carefully considered
       your appeal”.
       #Post#: 110667--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park 
       PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
       By: SpacedEngineer Date: February 22, 2026, 6:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=9473.msg110638#msg110638
       date=1771750340]
       Yes - the sign uses the term, "Maximum stay 3 hours".
       The term is therefore open to considerable interpretation in the
       circumstances.
       As a driver you can reasonably interpret the sign as meaning '3
       hours parking' whereas the parking operator is clearly using the
       argument of '3 hours time on site' (due to their use of ANPR
       camaras at the entrance / exit).
       This clearly falls into the realms of the legal principle of
       Contra proferentem.
       Suggest that you do a quick search for 'Contra proferentem' to
       familiarise yourself with the principle - it's actually straight
       forward.
       So, in your case, the operator states that the maximum stay is 3
       hours - they are the party setting out the ambiguous term which
       means that you are the party who can reasonably interpret that
       term - your interpretation is that the term means 3 hours
       parking and not 3 hours on site.
       Under Contra proferentem your interpretation should prevail in
       the dispute since your interpretation is justifiable in the
       specific circumstances.
       Suggest that you draw up your POPLA appeal based on your
       original appeal and then we can add an additional paragraph
       setting out the above.
       [/quote]
       Thanks so much for this info. Here is my first draft of an
       appeal. Please do let me know if anything should be changed or
       added.
       [quote]I submit this appeal against the Parking Charge Notice
       issued by Premier Park. I dispute the charge in full. No parking
       breach occurred. The driver returned to the vehicle well before
       the three-hour free parking period expired and attempted to
       leave the site, but was prevented from doing so by extreme
       congestion affecting the entire retail park. The vehicle was not
       parked beyond the permitted time; it was occupied and attempting
       to exit. The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit
       timestamps, which do not measure parking time and do not account
       for unavoidable gridlock within the site. Contemporaneous video
       evidence is provided to support this appeal.
       1. No Parking Breach Occurred
       I dispute this Parking Charge Notice in full because no parking
       breach occurred.
       The location offers three hours of free parking. The vehicle did
       not remain parked beyond that period. The driver returned to the
       vehicle well over an hour before the three-hour free parking
       allowance expired. The engine was started and the driver
       immediately attempted to leave the site, but the entire retail
       park was completely gridlocked. Congestion extended throughout
       the internal road layout and across all lanes and exit routes.
       Vehicles were unable to move despite drivers being present and
       actively attempting to exit.
       The vehicle was therefore not parked beyond the permitted time.
       It was occupied, engine running, and attempting to leave the
       site. Time spent stationary in a traffic queue while trying to
       exit a congested retail park does not constitute “parking”. At
       no stage did the driver choose to remain parked beyond the free
       allowance. The vehicle was physically prevented from exiting
       through no fault of the driver.
       2. ANPR Entry/Exit Timestamps Do Not Measure Parking Time
       The operator’s case relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit
       timestamps. ANPR records the time a vehicle enters and leaves
       the site perimeter. It does not record:
       • when the vehicle parked in a bay
       • when the vehicle vacated the bay
       • whether the vehicle was in transit
       • whether the vehicle was trapped in congestion
       The operator has chosen a monitoring method that measures “time
       on site”, not “time parked”.
       In this case, the ANPR system simply recorded that the vehicle
       was unable to exit due to severe congestion. It does not and
       cannot establish that the vehicle remained parked beyond the
       permitted period. Treating unavoidable exit-queue time as if it
       were deliberate parking time is fundamentally flawed and does
       not demonstrate any breach of the stated maximum stay.
       3. Extreme Site-Wide Congestion – Video Evidence
       Contemporaneous video evidence was taken at the time and is
       provided to POPLA. The footage clearly shows:
       • Extreme and unnavigable congestion extending throughout all
       internal lanes.
       • Vehicles stationary across the entire site.
       • No cars moving.
       • The vehicle positioned in a traffic lane, not in a parking
       bay.
       • The driver queuing in a line of traffic, completely unable to
       leave.
       The vehicle was not parked. It was in a live traffic lane, in a
       queue, with the engine running, awaiting the opportunity to
       exit. The driver had no ability to influence the pace of traffic
       and no alternative exit route available. The delay was entirely
       outside the driver’s control and arose solely from conditions
       within the site itself.
       4. Frustration of Contract / Impossibility of Performance
       Even if the operator asserts that “maximum stay” refers to total
       time on site (which is disputed), performance of the alleged
       contract was rendered impossible.
       The driver attempted to leave before the expiry of the free
       parking period. Timely exit was prevented by extreme congestion
       within the retail park.
       Where performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond
       a party’s control, the contract is frustrated. The driver cannot
       be held liable for failing to leave within three hours when exit
       was physically prevented by conditions on the operator’s own
       site.
       The operator cannot monetise congestion that occurs within its
       own managed premises and is outside the motorist’s control.
       5. Ambiguity of “Maximum Stay 3 Hours” – Interpretation in
       Favour of the Consumer
       The signage states: “Maximum stay 3 hours”. It does not define
       whether this refers to 3 hours parked in a bay, or 3 hours total
       time on site measured by ANPR. These are materially different
       interpretations.
       A reasonable motorist would interpret “maximum stay” as
       referring to parking time — the period during which the vehicle
       occupies a bay.
       The signage does not clearly warn motorists that unavoidable
       time spent queuing to exit due to site-wide congestion will be
       treated as chargeable parking time.
       Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is ambiguous,
       it must be interpreted against the party who drafted it. Any
       ambiguity regarding the meaning of “maximum stay” must therefore
       be resolved in favour of the consumer.
       In this case, the reasonable interpretation is that the maximum
       stay refers to parking time. The vehicle did not remain parked
       beyond three hours.[/quote]
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page