DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: InterCity125 Date: February 22, 2026, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good.
#Post#: 110709--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: DWMB2 Date: February 22, 2026, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is
ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted
it.[/quote]
Belt and braces perhaps, but you could quote an authority for
this so that it doesn't seem like you're just stating your
opinion. The POPLA assessor should know the legal basis of this
already, but there are a lot of things assessors should know,
but either don't, or choose to ignore.
This is an example of Contra proferentem or "interpretation
against the draughtsman" - it's covered under Section 69
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69/enacted<br
/>of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
[indent]"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice,
could have different meanings, the meaning that is most
favourable to the consumer is to prevail."[/indent]
#Post#: 110713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: SpacedEngineer Date: February 22, 2026, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=9473.msg110709#msg110709
date=1771793643]
[quote]Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is
ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted
it.[/quote]
Belt and braces perhaps, but you could quote an authority for
this so that it doesn't seem like you're just stating your
opinion. The POPLA assessor should know the legal basis of this
already, but there are a lot of things assessors should know,
but either don't, or choose to ignore.
This is an example of Contra proferentem or "interpretation
against the draughtsman" - it's covered under Section 69
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69/enacted<br
/>of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
[indent]"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice,
could have different meanings, the meaning that is most
favourable to the consumer is to prevail."[/indent]
[/quote]
Super helpful, thanks! Will incorporate it into my appeal.
#Post#: 113129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: SpacedEngineer Date: March 13, 2026, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Premier Park have uploaded their evidence against my POPLA
appeal. Once again, they have not addressed much of my appeal,
and have simply reiterated that there are no exceptions to the 3
hour maximum stay.
I now have 7 days to to add any comments against their evidence.
Please could you advise if there is anything I should state?
Not sure if it's relevant, but they seem to have contradicted
themselves multiple times about the grace period. In pdf titled
"contract", they state under "Key Terms" that the grace period
is 15 minutes. In the pdf titled "letter", they state the grace
period is 10 minutes. However again in the same document, they
state the driver overstayed the maximum stay period by 16
minutes, which they state is 10 minutes over the grace period –
meaning that the grace period is 6 minutes. So unless I'm
misunderstanding, they have quoted 3 different grace periods in
their evidence?
I have uploaded screenshots of their evidence here:
HTML https://imgbox.com/g/2F1pV7rrfM
#Post#: 113468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: SpacedEngineer Date: March 16, 2026, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please could someone look through my reply before I submit it to
POPLA? Keen to get any feedback.
The operator’s evidence submission does not meaningfully address
the points raised in my appeal. Instead, it appears to be a
generic template response that simply repeats the ANPR entry and
exit timestamps and asserts that the vehicle remained “on site”
beyond the maximum stay period. None of the issues raised in my
appeal have been addressed. In particular, the operator has
failed to engage with the evidence showing that the vehicle was
not parked beyond the permitted period and was instead trapped
in gridlocked traffic while attempting to leave the site well
before the time limit expired.
The operator’s evidence fails to address the central argument of
my appeal and instead relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit
timestamps. These timestamps only record when a vehicle enters
and leaves the site perimeter; they do not demonstrate that the
vehicle was parked in breach of the terms. My appeal made it
clear that the vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted
period. The driver returned to the vehicle well before the
three-hour limit expired and attempted to leave the site.
However, the entire retail park was gridlocked and vehicles were
unable to move. The vehicle was therefore stationary in a
traffic lane while queuing to exit, not parked in a bay.
The operator’s evidence does not engage with this point at all.
Instead, it simply repeats that the vehicle remained “on site”
for 3 hours and 16 minutes. This does not establish that the
vehicle was parked for that duration. Time spent stationary in a
traffic queue while attempting to leave a congested site is not
“parking”. The operator has produced no evidence showing the
vehicle parked beyond the permitted period. Their ANPR system is
incapable of making that distinction, as it only records entry
and exit times.
The contemporaneous video evidence submitted with my appeal
clearly shows the true circumstances. It demonstrates that the
vehicle was positioned in a live traffic lane with the engine
running, surrounded by stationary vehicles and unable to move.
The footage shows that all internal lanes within the retail park
were blocked and that vehicles across the site were stationary.
The vehicle was not occupying a parking bay and was clearly
attempting to exit. The operator’s evidence does not address
this footage in any meaningful way and provides no explanation
for the gridlock that prevented vehicles from leaving the site.
The operator’s own contract states that parking charge notices
may be issued for vehicles parked in contravention of the terms.
The operator has not demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in
contravention of any term. Their entire case relies on the
assumption that time on site equates to parking time, which is
not supported by the evidence. The fact that a vehicle was
unable to leave due to severe congestion within the site does
not constitute a breach of parking terms.
The circumstances also amount to frustration of contract. Even
if the operator asserts that the three-hour limit refers to time
on site rather than time parked (which is disputed), the driver
attempted to leave before the expiry of the permitted period but
was prevented from doing so by circumstances entirely outside
their control. The site was gridlocked and vehicles were unable
to move. A party cannot be held liable for failing to perform a
contractual obligation where performance becomes impossible due
to events beyond their control. The operator’s submission does
not address this point at all.
There are also clear inconsistencies in the operator’s evidence
regarding the grace period. In their submission they state that
the maximum stay is three hours and that a 10-minute grace
period is provided, giving motorists 3 hours and 10 minutes to
exit the car park. However, the contract they have provided
states that the time limit is “3 hours plus an additional period
of grace of 15 minutes.” These two statements cannot both be
correct. The operator has therefore presented conflicting
evidence regarding the applicable grace period. Where a consumer
contract contains ambiguous terms, Section 69 of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015 requires that the interpretation most favourable
to the consumer prevails.
There are also inconsistencies in the way the alleged overstay
has been described. At one point the operator states that the
vehicle remained on site for 3 hours and 16 minutes, but then
later in the same document they assert that the vehicle exceeded
the maximum stay period by 10 minutes and 1 second. These
figures are not consistent with one another and further call
into question the reliability of the operator’s calculations and
the accuracy of the operator’s evidence.
The operator has produced no evidence to contradict the video
footage showing that vehicles were unable to move and that the
driver was already attempting to leave well before the
three-hour limit expired.
The operator’s evidence therefore fails to demonstrate that any
breach occurred. It relies solely on ANPR timestamps that
measure time on site rather than parking time and does not
address the evidence showing that the vehicle was queuing to
exit due to severe congestion. The operator has also provided
inconsistent information regarding the applicable grace period
and the alleged duration of the overstay.
For these reasons, the operator has not established that the
vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions,
and the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled.
#Post#: 113491--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: InterCity125 Date: March 17, 2026, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You might be struggling for space when submitting but I would
stick the S69 of CRA in a separate paragraph and, once again,
give a brief comment that the term 'Max Stay 3 Hours' is being
reasonably interpreted by yourself to mean '3 hours parking' and
not '3 hours onsite' and that the principle of contra
proferentum must be applied in this instance.
I think your evidence is more than enough to win but POPLA have
been very unpredictable lately.
#Post#: 113506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: SpacedEngineer Date: March 17, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=9473.msg113491#msg113491
date=1773733473]
You might be struggling for space when submitting but I would
stick the S69 of CRA in a separate paragraph and, once again,
give a brief comment that the term 'Max Stay 3 Hours' is being
reasonably interpreted by yourself to mean '3 hours parking' and
not '3 hours onsite' and that the principle of contra
proferentum must be applied in this instance.
I think your evidence is more than enough to win but POPLA have
been very unpredictable lately.
[/quote]
Thanks, I'll do that. In the scenario that POPLA reject my
appeal, what happens next?
#Post#: 113513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstay Due to Gridlock Traffic in Car Park - Premier Park
PCN, Purley Cross Retail Park
By: DWMB2 Date: March 17, 2026, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you lose at POPLA, they'll engage debt collectors. These debt
collectors are powerless and will simply send scary-sounding
letters. They will not be turning up at your house and you can
ignore their letters.
Eventually, the debt collectors will get bored and pass the
matter back to the parking company. The parking company may then
choose to take court action. If they do, you'll receive a Letter
of Claim from their solicitors. If that happens, come back here
for advice.
In the meantime, keep an eye on your emails for POPLA's
decision. Once you've submitted your comments you should get an
email advising you of the estimated wait time. It's usually at
least 6 weeks.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page