Fine from Excel Parking for "overstay" using ANPR in and out times (16 mins over 1 hour we paid for)

JohnDoe163

Hi all,

My partner received an "invoice" by post from Excel of £60 for a 1hr 16 minute stay in their car park outside Iceland. I spoke to Iceland but they simply gave me the number for Excel.

I've been reading up on the whole process and it sounds like Excel are quite litigious so may take this to court, even though I don't think we have technically overstayed when you account the time for buying a ticket etc.

My partner just wants to pay it bc it's her car, and she wouldn't be willing to go to court (I would!) Is it still worth appealing? Or should we just pay? I 've drafted this letter (I hadn't seen the newbie one before draftng it), which includes most of the details. Any insights would be appreciated:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking “charge” Notice number [insert Parking “charge” Notice number]

I dispute your Parking “charge” Notice [insert reference], issued on 31/01/2026 in respect of the above vehicle at Iceland Wood Green Customer Car Park, Wood Green, N22 6TN. I am the registered keeper. I deny any liability or contractual agreement in respect of this purported parking charge (invoice). I have raised a complaint to the Iceland store owner over this unreasonable “charge” (invoice) and am planning to escalate these unfair and unethical practices of Excel Parking to their CEO and my local MP, as this is a predatory and unfair practice against lawfully paying customers.

For the avoidance of doubt, the keeper has not identified and will not identify the driver. The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the absence of full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements, liability cannot transfer to the registered keeper. The keeper refers the operator to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward, in which the court confirmed that a keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver. Further, the keeper disputes that the Notice to Keeper constitutes a valid Protection of Freedoms Act-compliant Notice to Keeper.

Your notice alleges that the vehicle was “parked after the expiry of the time purchased.” According to your ANPR data, the vehicle entered the site at 10:58:20 and exited at 12:14:37.

As a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), the operator is bound by the IPC Code of Practice. Section 13 provides:

• 13.1 – Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period to make an informed decision as to whether to remain on the land.
• 13.2 – A Grace Period of 10 minutes must be allowed at the end of a permitted parking period before a Parking Charge is issued.

The total period between entry and exit necessarily includes:

• A reasonable Consideration Period (5 minutes) on arrival to read signage and decide whether to remain;
• Time required to locate a bay, manoeuvre safely, and park (1-2 minutes);
  The mandatory minimum 10-minute Grace Period at the end of the permitted parking period;
• Time required to exit the site. (1-2 minutes);

Once the mandatory Grace Period and a reasonable Consideration Period are properly applied, the ANPR timestamps are consistent with lawful parking. Any alleged “overstay” would be minimal and falls within what courts recognise as de minimis. Such a trivial discrepancy cannot reasonably constitute a contractual breach.

Further, ANPR captures entry and exit at the site boundary – not the period of actual parking. Drivers cannot reasonably be expected to know their precise ANPR entry timestamp. If parking time is measured from entry rather than from the point of parking and ticket purchase, then appropriate allowance must be made for:

• Locating a suitable bay;
• Manoeuvring safely;
• Reading signage;
• Queuing at the payment machine.

The keeper therefore requires strict proof of:

1. The exact time the pay-and-display ticket was issued, as recorded by the machine’s internal system on the material date;
   Evidence that this timestamp correlates accurately with the ANPR data;
2. Confirmation that the mandatory Grace Period under IPC Code Section 13.2 was applied prior to enforcement;
3. Evidence that a sufficient Consideration Period under Section 13.1 was allowed;
   Full ANPR data relied upon and evidence that the system was properly maintained and synchronised on the material date;
4. Evidence of the signage terms in place on the material date and their compliance with IPC Code requirements;
5. Confirmation of the grace period agreed by the landowner and applied before enforcement action.

In the absence of such evidence, the operator cannot establish that any breach occurred.

In light of the above, the keeper respectfully requests that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
The Registered Keeper

Coupon-mad

Get her to name you as driver if you were.

JohnDoe163

I'm not insured on the car, unfortunately, otherwise I'd be willing to do that.

Coupon-mad

OK well she needs to know this WILL go to a court hearing (Excel do) but NOT to pay to make it go away. I am constantly astonished good people do that: what a terrible example to set their family (paying a scam because you are scared isn't the MSE ethos).

JohnDoe163

I hear you. I think her rationale is it would cost her more to take a day off work (i.e. a day's annual leave) than it would to go to court.

I suggested she could tell her employer the circumstances and they may understand. But she works for the NHS and doesn't think she'd be able to take the day off to go to court without using annual leave.