Excel Appeal Rejected

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82072990#Comment_82072990

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82073185#Comment_82073185

Thats a great template, wow! thank you for that thats great.

Just a couple of things through the appeal process it says :

Who are you representing / appealing the Notice of Unpaid Tariff on behalf of?

It says myself or another person (asks for details of other person) ignore that and say me ?

Are you being held liable for the charge?

Yes or no

Were you the driver at the relevant time?

Yes or no + I am not prepared to say

Were you the keeper at the relevant time?

Yes or no

Thank you for all of your help!

Coupon-mad

Hang on, are you telling me that POPLA now ask if an appellant was driving?

Show us a screenshot!

(Tick no to 'appealing on behalf of someone else').

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82074528#Comment_82074528

No thats the IAS......

Coupon-mad

Oh yes of course. 😀

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82074562#Comment_82074562

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82074528#Comment_82074528

They are cheeky, ill give them that.

I appreciate all the help this far, I have sent it off, so I will let you know what they decide on…

:)

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82074541#Comment_82074541

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82074562#Comment_82074562

now here is a surprise!

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 24/07/2026 10:55:12.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 14/05/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 14/05/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

1. The Iceland (NOT SURE IF SUPPOSED TO EDIT THIS OUT) Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking. 

2. The signage states, “24 Hour Pay on Entry Car Park” and “After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 10 minutes is allowed to purchase the required Parking Tariff”. 

3. The signage further states ‘You must ensure the FULL & ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment'

4. The signage is clear that any motorist who does not comply with the Terms and Conditions of parking will become liable for a Charge Notice.

5. Management of the Iceland XXXXXX Car Park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which record vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are compared payments made and any vehicle that remains on site and fails to make a valid payment for the vehicle on site is issued a Parking Charge Notice.

6. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 14/05/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.

7. ANPR images supplied confirm that the vehicle entered the car park at 11:43:23 and exited at 12:29:07; a duration of 45min 44sec.

8. Payment data supplied confirms that no payment was made for the appellant's vehicle while on site, which is not disputed by the appellant. The appellant's invalid ticket is shown the data.

9. The circumstances cited by the appellant and the purchase of an invalid ticket for their vehicle do not warrant the cancellation of this notice. The contract between the appellant and EPS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated that a valid payment bearing the full and accurate VRM of the vehicle parked onsite must be made; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice. 

10. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite, including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose. 

11. It should be noted that all ticket machines are fitted with a cancel button. If pressed at any point (before pressing the green button to print the P&D ticket), any money inserted will be refunded allowing the user to correct mistakes, use another P&D machine or leave the car park if they did not wish to proceed with the purchase. It should be further noted that the digital display on the ticket machine has an LED display illuminated with a green light; as the buttons on the machine are pressed, the relevant information is displayed on that panel. The information displayed, whether during daylight or hours of darkness, clearly shows a motorist whether or not they have entered their correct VRM.

12. It is not unreasonable to expect a motorist to check the validity of any ticket they purchase and to take corrective action if necessary.

13. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty. This was not utilised by the appellant. Had the appellant contacted us at the time and brought the matter to our attention advice could have been given that could have prevented the need for a PCN.

14. We refer the adjudicator to point F.3 of the Single Code of Practice (for Parking Operators) which states ‘In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the below case types as mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the amount of the parking charge to £20 for 14 days, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. This reduction applies only for the first parking charge issued to the vehicle for the specific contravention, where payment is made within 14 days and where no independent appeal is lodged. […] where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering their vehicle for example, letters wrong or missing; characters swapped; motorist entered the wrong car registration (e.g. their previous car or another vehicle from their household):' As the appellant presented no evidence of ownership of the vehicle ‘XXXXX' on the part of their girlfriend, no reduced offer was made or will now be made.

15. Ultimately it was the sole responsibility of the motorist to park in compliance of the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to do so the appellant became liable for the charge.

16. The appellant became liable for a Parking Charge Notice, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed, by the motorist failing to make a valid payment for the vehicle on site. 

I’ve realised I’ve messed up, they sent the original email on :

08/06/2026

And then the next one on :

10/07/2026.

Am I unlucky?

Coupon-mad

LOL, what do you mean you've messed up? You didn't.

Did you read that pile of steaming anti-consumer BS from Excel? Of course the £20 offer had to be made at first stage appeal once they knew about the major keying error!

You didn't have to prove your gf's ownership of her vehicle that she keyed in (that would be completely intrusive and unnecessary data processing of an irrelevant vehicle and identifies a person they are not holding liable!).

AND Excel know that:

• That car wasn't in the car park, and
• it was on their VRM log, so what you said matched
• the CoP requires them to offer a mandatory £20 settlement and they didn't.

This one is a great example of Excel's rogue conduct for the CMA so please update us with all Excel responses.

And the final outcome.

Are you still in time to add comments?

Did you put in the full text you were given?

🙂

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82079982#Comment_82079982

I see, yeah I read the lot looks like a bunch of template nonsense….

yeah I gather that’s the case, I’d have been okay with paying £20 to get rid of it, I cannot lie…

So it’s given me an option to either I guess send it off to the IAS or I can reply back I have 7 days…

What a palava…

I assumed by messing up, as I genuinely never saw their original email until it was too late…

yes I submitted the full thing as above (just with my details added)

These are the details :

You will then have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82079982#Comment_82079982

as a thought, I can just leave it and the IAS will just read the case ? What are the chances they will still side with excel

Coupon-mad

95% likely the bent IAS will side with Excel! We thought you knew it's a kangaroo court?

Of course you don't let it go (it isn't arbitration). You respond. I pretty much told you what to put but if it was me, I'd put:

I have read the template pile of steaming anti-consumer BS from Excel, with interest. Can't wait to see if your anonymous assessor sides with them. IAS isn't 'arbitration' so don't insult my intelligence by pretending it is. Anyway, my comments are:

• Nobody has to 'prove the driver's ownership' of her vehicle that she keyed in. Under UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 data principles, that would be intrusive and unnecessary data processing of an irrelevant vehicle and would identify a third party whom Excel are not holding liable.
• They have no legal right to see her data and no need because Excel already know:
• that car wasn't in the car park, yet
• it was on their VRM log, so the payment the driver made could easily be matched up.
• the Joint CoP requires operators to offer a mandatory £20 settlement in these circumstances and the prima facie position here is that Excel didn't.
• In any event, the joke (massively altered in operators' favour and partly written by Excel's ex-clamper owner) industry Code is largely self-serving rubbish and is not the law.
• On 16 July 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority published an "open letter to the private parking sector" (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-letter-to-the-private-parking-sector) following an initial examination of practices within the sector.
• The CMA identified concerns about the potentially unfair practices of some operators – including the way operators handle appeals. I refer Excel and the IAS Assessor to paragraphs 11-14 and 29-34 of the CMA's Open Letter to operators.
• If Excel do not concede this appeal and/or if the IAS find against me, I will email all my evidence of Excel's conduct (and a specific complaint about the IAS' lack of impartiality and fairness) to the CMA forthwith.