Free Traffic Legal Advice

just for those following this - the IAS response- no suprise there -

"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.
The signage at The Parkgate Autocare car park is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms; After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 5 minutes is allowed to purchase a valid ticket or make payment by phone.
The Appellant's vehicle entered the site at 10.22 and left at 13.12, with the ticket being purchased at 10.44, 22 minutes after the vehicle had entered the site.
Despite paying for parking, the advertised terms were not complied with, and the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
The reasons for the late payment could amount to mitigation, which the operator has duly considered.
If the operator felt that the mitigation warranted it, they could have withdrawn the Parking Charge. They have chosen not to do so.
As stated above, as adjudicator I am only able to consider legal argument. The Appellant in this case has no legal argument.
Having considered all the issues raised, I am satisfied that the Appellant failed to comply with the advertised terms for parking, and the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed.

What's my next step? just wait for a court date?

Ok team, new response - this was what I sent them

The driver was my wife, therefore I have a detailed account of what occured. My wife drove to Darlington from our home address in Cambois (NE241SE) with our very young baby (DOB 17.11.2023). Due to traffic the drive took longer than expected, around 90 minutes. When she arrived our son had been screaming for a good half an hour. She pulled into a parking spot and immediately saw to him assuming she could pay the ticket after she'd dealt with the urgent matter of feeding our son. She breast fed him, adjusted her clothes, got him safely out the car and then bought a ticket, this took roughly 21 minutes, as is shown by the time she entered and the time she bought a ticket. She left immediately after paying properly for three hours parking to go about her business. The creditor is seeking to recover a parking charge because payment was not made within the time specified. I submit that in the circumstances this is unenforcable because the driver had a 'protected characteristic' under the equality act and is therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments which include being allowed to pay the tarriff beyond the stipulated period.

My wife was attending a show for babies at theatre hullabaloo nearby, so evidence can be provided in the form of eyewitnesses and ticket bookings if necessary, although I assume the parking cameras at the site would show my wife carrying our baby. I am prepared to take this all the way to court, but I would rather not waste everybody's time and cancel this erroneous matter now.


This is what Excell replied -

The operator made their response on 23/02/2024 14:36:26.

1. If the appellant wishes to transfer liability for the charge to another person they may do so by providing the full name and serviceable address for that person, who will be sent a notice. However if that person denies liability, liability will revert to the appellant as registered keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

2. Any CCTV cameras located on the site are property of the landowner or respective business. If the appellant wishes to view any CCTV footage they may hold, the appellant would have to approach and request this from them themselves. Neither we nor the adjudicator have any investigatory power on the motorist's behalf.

What now - should I A) refer it to arbitration and let the IAS give a verdict or B) dob my wife in and let her fight it on the grounds of the breast feeding C) say something else in response to Excell?

- Thanks for advice as ever, I'm just a bit hazy on wether I'll still be able to use the breast feeding as reason for late parking payment if I'm the one up in court.

Yes my response does mention the POFA - this is what I sent them as advised by a board member further up this thread.




1.  The keeper was not driving.  The operator, therefore,  purports to hold rely on Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to hold the keeper liable.  However, in order to do so, the operator must deliver to the keeper within the 'relevant period' as defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) a notice to keeper ('NTK') that satisfies the strict requirements of POFA, including the requirements of POFA paragraph 9(2)(f).  Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA is insufficient.

2. The relevant period defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) is 'the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended' which has now expired so the operator cannot now deliver a new POFA-compliant NTK.

3. The operator's purported NTK is not POFA-compliant because it does not include the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) which states that a NTK must:

 warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid

4.  The warning in the operator's purported NTK does not include the mandatory statement that the creditor's right to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable conditions under POFA being met.

5.  The operator may seek to argue that their warning conforms to the wording required by the IPC Code of Practice.  However POFA is an Act of Parliament and is law.  The IPC Code of Conduct is not law.  While the operator might in retrospect consider that it made a mistake in choosing to comply with the IPC Code of Practice rather than the law, IAS adjudicators must apply the law and cannot consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances, whether made by the operator or the IPC.

6.  The operator's summary of the Equality Act is breathtaking in its ignorance.  Reasonable adjustment for breastfeeding mothers is expressly required by the Act and is not limited to the examples cited by the operator. Subsections 17(3) and (4) read as follows:-

(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.

(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding..

7.  The child in question was less than 26 weeks old at the time of the alleged parking event.  A copy of the child's birth certificate has been uploaded. The operator is not entitled to any further 'evidence' of breastfeeding.

8.  It is immaterial whether the unadjusted consideration period is 5 or 20 minutes.  The adjusted amount of time required by the driver (who was alone with her baby) was 22 minutes and she must be allowed that time by law.  Please note that this is a respectful demand for application of a legal right and not a request for consideration of mitigating or extenuating circumstances

this is just the response from the operator - I could respond again or refer to arbitrator. Just wondered if I notified them of my wife's name then they might send her a notice and then let her off because of the breast feeding.

Hey Team,

here's the reply on IAS -

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent to the appellant states: “Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Notice is given, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is proved..”

2. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; by failing to provide those details, the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice.

3. The design, wording and layout of the NTK complies with the IPC Code of Practice.

What do you suggest next?

Wow this is excellent, thanks so much nosy parker, I'll submit the reply and upload the birth certificate and keep you posted

Where did the idea that the driver had a 20 minute consideration period come from?

The keeper mentioning that the driver was breast feeding does not identify the driver. It could be anyone such as the keepers daughter, niece, cousin, friend, work colleague, neighbour and so on.

Playing devils advocate… The keeper says that the driver was breast feeding. Was the keeper in the car at the time? If so, why didn’t the keeper pay for the parking whilst the driver was breast feeding the baby?

“The circumstances cited by the appellant, of which no evidence has been supplied…” is an interesting comment by the operator. Are they really demanding that “evidence” of the woman breast feeding a baby is required? All sorts of connotations there.

Also just to clarify, I (the keeper) was not in the car, my wife was alone with the baby.

Quote from: b789 on February 10, 2024, 03:04:13 pm

As for the argument about discrimination, that is unlikely to hold any sway. The Equality Act 2010 does not explicitly mention breastfeeding mothers. whilst the Act does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, which could cover issues related to breastfeeding, it may be a stretch to apply it in this context.

The Equality Act does mention breastfeeding mothers - but only for 26 weeks after giving birth. See subsections 17(3) and (4):-

(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.

(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.

we could be in luck as our baby was roughly 8/9 weeks at the time