Excel Appeal Rejected

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082107#Comment_82082107

I appealed the PCN on the basis that my partner, who was driving the vehicle at the time, accidentally entered the Vehicle Registration Mark (“VRM”) for her vehicle, instead of my vehicle.
This appeal included the VRM which was accidentally entered, as well as a photograph of the parking ticket obtained showing that parking was paid for [Appendix 1].

Annex F of the Single Sector Code of Practice (“CoP”) [Appendix 2] sets out the circumstances where the charge should be reduced to £20, and this includes:
a) where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering their vehicle for example … motorist entered the wrong car registration (e.g. their previous car or another vehicle from their household).

In its response the Operator has sought to impose an additional requirement that I prove ownership of the vehicle whose VRM was entered. No such requirement appears in the CoP. The Operator already holds the payment data matched against a VRM that its own ANPR images confirm was not present on site, while my vehicle was. The payment can therefore be readily matched to the vehicle that was actually parked. Requiring proof of ownership of an irrelevant third-party vehicle is unnecessary and would involve the processing of personal data of a person who is not being held liable, contrary to the data-protection principles in the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

In contravention of the CoP, the Operator did not offer me a reduced charge of £20.
The failure to do so means that this PCN should be cancelled in its entirety.

Additionally, on 16th July 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published an open letter to private parking operators [Appendix 3].
Paragraph 30 highlights failures of operators to “reduce PCNs to £20 in line with the Charter”.
At paragraph 31, the CMA concludes that such failures “could infringe consumer law, in particular by falling below the standard of care and skill expected of operators, as these are likely to impact consumers’ decision making”.

The Operator’s refusal to apply the mandatory reduction, and its invention of an evidential hurdle not found in the CoP, is precisely the type of conduct identified by the CMA.

I therefore request that the Independent Appeals Service allow this appeal and direct the Operator to cancel Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXX

I reserve the right to refer the Operator’s conduct (and, if necessary, the handling of this appeal) to the Competition and Markets Authority.

Thoughts on this ? Used the above message as a template and just mashed some words in.

Coupon-mad

Looks great! Keep pushing back.

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82083519#Comment_82083519

sent it off, we will see what they say.

imgoneagainpromise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82086216#Comment_82086216

Appeal Pending

You will be notified when a decision has been made on your appeal. 

Says this now, they never replied to me!

imgoneagainpromise

A while onwards, still heard nothing, is this normal ?

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82102474#Comment_82102474

It’s almost always a long game. Hardly ever fits with the expectations of the motorist.

imgoneagainpromise

they have rejected it….

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their vehicle's stay, with a full accurate registration, will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that their girlfriend paid to park and paid for her own vehicle and not the correct vehicle. They have provides evidence to support the claims. The evidence is that of a ticket, but not that there is a relationship to the vehicle. As explained above, at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied. 

The Appellant relies upon Annex F.3 of the Single Code of Practice. I accept that the circumstances described are of a type capable of falling within F.3(a), which includes a motorist paying the tariff but entering the registration of another vehicle from their household. However, the reduction provided by F.3 is subject to appropriate evidence being provided and applies only where, amongst other requirements, no independent appeal has been lodged.

The Appellant produced the parking ticket showing that payment had been made against another vehicle registration and stated that this was their girlfriend's vehicle. However, no evidence was provided establishing the asserted connection with that vehicle. The Operator did not therefore apply the reduction provided by F.3.

The Appellant raises an issue as to the Operator's handling of that aspect of the first-stage appeal. Annex F recognises that, where evidence is lacking, it may be appropriate for an Operator to request additional evidence before finalising its decision. Whether the Operator's handling of the first-stage appeal complied with the requirements of the Code is not a matter for me to determine in this appeal. The Appellant may raise that issue as a complaint with the IPC, as the Operator's Accredited Trade Association.

It does not, however, provide a basis upon which I can allow this appeal. The £20 reduction under F.3 expressly applies only where no independent appeal has been lodged. The matter is now at the independent appeal stage and my role is to determine liability for the Parking Charge.

The parking terms required the tariff to be paid against the correct vehicle registration. Although the Appellant has established that a payment was made, that payment was registered against a different vehicle. If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating factors. 

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, forty-five minutes after it arrived, and without a payment for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed."

Does this mean I have to pay? Seems like utter BS.

@Coupon-mad

Gr1pr

Nobody has to pay unless a judge orders it

Ignore them

kryten3000

F.3 says this:

"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.

Note: When considering appeals, operators should look at evidence provided in the
appeals process and where evidence is lacking it may be appropriate to ask the motorist to
provide additional evidence to support their account before finalising their decision.

a) where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering their
ehicle 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);"


The note refers to a situation where the appellant says the driver used a different registration but doesn't provide it.

Previous car or another vehicle from the household are examples not an exhaustive list.

As usual, Excel pretend the rules don't apply to them and the IAS backs them up instead of applying the code correctly.

Excel/Vehicle Control Services have previously lost cases where the registration was entered incorrectly including one where the driver entered "Ford" instead. The judges' decisions were that payment had been made for parking and the rest was irrelevant.

Please not not pay the scam.

Car1980

Classic tactics. "The appellant hasn't provided evidence of XYZ".

If you HAD submitted such evidence they would still simply ignore it or say the evidence isn't good enough, or irrelevant.

You can never win.

Only 4% are allowed at the IAS. And I'm scratching my head not knowing what the 4% could possibly be.