Firstly, greetings, as a regular on another forum I enquired about 'The' most helpful person for PCN's as I'd not seen him (b789) there for some time and was told about this site, so please forgive the duplicate request for help.
The driver was fined for parking outside the bays, admittedly they were parked poorly, the driver is heavily expecting and so was in a major rush.
Can the experts please advise best way to challenge this fine?
Hi @3Sh3roo. Can I ask you to complete this PCN details form and then paste the summary it produces so I can keep a proper record of where we are with is. Once you have done that and I have all the details, I can get back to you with your options. Thanks:
03-23-2026, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2026, 06:53 PM by 3Sh3roo.)
(03-23-2026, 05:14 PM)b789 Wrote: Hi @3Sh3roo. Can I ask you to complete this PCN details form and then paste the summary it produces so I can keep a proper record of where we are with is. Once you have done that and I have all the details, I can get back to you with your options. Thanks:
hi b789, thank you for getting back to me, I've filled in the details, please see as follows, by the way it was difficult to enter 2026 in the dates part, just edited below instead:
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Excel Parking Services Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Saturday, 13 March 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 17 March 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Crossley Retail Park, Halifax, HX1 5RA.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 19 March 1926 (6 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
The immediate point is that Excel are an IPC member, not a BPA member, so when they reject the initial appeal the only second-stage appeal is to the IAS. In practical terms, the IAS is a kangaroo court, so you should proceed on the basis that a rejection at first stage will be followed by a futile IAS process and, if Excel choose to pursue the matter, potentially a county court claim.
As to the Notice to Keeper (NtK) itself, the main PoFA point is that it does not specify any period of parking. It gives only a single contravention time of 16:23. That is not what PoFA requires. Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to specify the period of parking. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.
That defect matters because a parking operator can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper if the NtK is fully compliant with PoFA. It is not enough for the notice to be mostly compliant or nearly compliant. If any one of the mandatory statutory requirements is missing, Keeper liability does not arise. In that situation, only the driver could be liable, and if the driver is not identified Excel cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper.
So the correct approach at this stage is for the Keeper to submit the initial appeal without identifying the driver, pointing out that the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA because it fails to specify the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a), and that Excel therefore cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
That said, Excel are known for being vexatious and should not be expected to act reasonably simply because the PoFA defect is obvious. So whilst the Keeper should absolutely raise the point now, the realistic expectation is that Excel will reject it anyway, the IAS is unlikely to assist, and the matter may ultimately need to be defended in the county court. If that happens, the Keeper liability point can then be developed properly with reliance on Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], appeal before HHJ Mitchell at Plymouth County Court, which is directly helpful on the issue that a single timestamp is not a period of parking.
You can appeal to Excel with the following and then wait for the rejection. When that arrives we can put something together for the waste of time IAS:
Quote:I am appealing as the registered keeper. I deny any liability for this charge.
Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore you cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In particular, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of parking. It states only a single contravention time. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.
As your Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with PoFA, there is no keeper liability. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions can be made in that regard.
In the circumstances, you must cancel this charge. If you refuse, then please treat this as a request for all photographs taken, all notes made by the operative, and a full copy of the notice relied upon.
As a matter of interest, why did the driver park like that? The fact that the they were heavily pregnant at the time and is a rush, is not really mitigating circumstances. Did anyone in the vehicle hold a blue badge? They are relying on the poor parking rather than the breach of the blue badge conditions.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Thank you so much for the detailed response and help (as always), having spoken to the driver she advised she was desperate for the loo and thought it would be ok, a little dippy I know...
I've just tried to appeal on their website, I'm not sure which option to pick for 'reason for appeal', please see below all options they have listed, if I don't select anything it returns an error, any suggestions?
That is the usual entrapment attempt by this firm of scammers. The Keeper is forced to select options that admit liability as the driver. Unless there is an option to simply select “Other”, then do not use that webform.
Instead, you can use their complaints webform. Under the PPSCoP section 11.2, they are obliged to treat a formal complaint as an appeal of it contains one.
So, submit the following as your formal complaint:
Quote:I am submitting this as a formal complaint and as my formal appeal against the Parking Charge Notice [ref]. It must be treated as both.
I am the registered keeper. I deny any liability for this charge.
Your online appeals portal is defective and unfair because it compels the user to select wording in the first person such as “I did this” or “I did that”, which falsely assumes that the appellant was the driver and improperly pressures a keeper into making an admission that they are under no obligation to make. I will not use a process that is structured so as to misrepresent my position.
This complaint includes a clear challenge to the validity of the Parking Charge Notice and must therefore also be treated as an appeal under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025. It is not to be treated as a complaint only.
Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you are therefore unable to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. In particular, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of parking. It states only a single contravention time of 16:23. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.
That defect is fatal to any attempt to rely on keeper liability. The statutory conditions must be met in full. As they have not been met, there is no keeper liability in this case.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions can be made in that regard.
In the circumstances, this charge must be cancelled.
If you refuse, then please treat this as a request for all photographs taken, all notes made by the operative, and a full copy of the notice relied upon.
Please confirm that this complaint has been logged and that it is being treated as the keeper’s formal appeal against the Parking Charge Notice. If you reject it, then you must issue the appropriate rejection and details of the next stage.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
They definitely don't have an 'other' option, they also don't have a complaints webform, instead they are wanting a letter of complaint, I have found a contact us page webform and an email address litigation@excelparking.co.uk, should I just use them instead? I think another email exists info@excelparking.co.uk.
Do not use litigation@excelparking.co.uk. Do not rely on an unverified info@ address. Use the general contact-us webform and submit it as a formal complaint that must also be treated as an appeal under PPSCoP section 11.2 and Excel’s own complaints policy section 6.
State at the top that the message is a formal complaint and formal appeal against the PCN, and that it must be treated as an appeal under section 11.2 of the PPSCoP and under Excel’s own section 6 complaints policy because the portal wording improperly forces driver-based admissions.
Also state expressly that the Keeper does not consent to the matter being treated as a complaint only, and that the Keeper denies liability and is not identifying the driver.
Submit it through the contact form, take screenshots before and after submission, and send the exact same text to the Keeper’s own email address immediately afterwards so there is a timestamped record of what was sent. That protects the evidence position if Excel later pretend it was not an appeal.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
03-24-2026, 03:44 PM (This post was last modified: 03-24-2026, 03:48 PM by 3Sh3roo.)
Thanks, just done that, they keep a small window for comments so I had to scroll up and take 9 screenshots, then sent them to the keepers email address, so all recorded.
See screenshots suitably redacted for those who may need to do similar (or better) in future.
