Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you Hippocrates. So as far as I can see an appeal using the wording below is what i should be using and nothing further to do with the contravention?

"The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased

charge may be payable.

Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning

with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively."

Not sure if this is even worth an appeal. saw a parking spot down a road and stupidly decided to reverse down the road to park instead of driving around the block and was caught on camera. Just thought I would ask in case there is anything i can appeal on?

Thanks all and Merry Xmas!

Just got a very quick response. Do I now just leave it to go to court?

The operator made their response on 28/11/2024 08:32:20.

The appellant has stated about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 regarding knowing the driver of the vehicle, however, they did identify themselves as the driver and the keeper, and therefore we are still pursuing the same person. Please find attached the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant, and the appeal from the appellant which clearly shows that the driver and the keeper are the same person, and therefore we are still compliant within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

I am just going to copy out your first paragraph. I dont understand what was meant by number 2 option sorry.
The deadline for it is tonight so will get it done now.
Anyone else find it annoying that you cannot cut and paste on the IAS website?
Bet they do that on purpose!

I appealed via the IAS and received the operators response. I now have a few days to go back. Is that now necessary and, if so, to say what?
I have already stated my claim (copied below)..

You completed the appeal on 15/11/2024 10:44:37.

The signage and parking markings are ambiguous. One of the residents informed me many people park there and pay as I did. I reversed in an on the day there was a big puddle covering the visitor sign on the floor which is quite worn. I have taken a picture and included on a drier day for you to see how the puddle forms. I reversed into the bay which makes it even harder to notice if its a visitor bay or not. The way the signage is makes it look like all of the bays are pay and display.

The fact I actually paid means there is no material loss to the operator.
The sign states "Parking bays labelled "v" or "visitor" are solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an address of a Tait Court resident" - This language implies that these specific bars are exclusively for visitors but it does not clearly prohibit visitors from using the unmarked or general bays.

The sign states "Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking exists" - However it does not clarify that every bay outside of visitor-designated bays require an e-permit, nor does it explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.

While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit it does not specify that this applies strictly to all non visitor bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions should be clear and visible and understandable to all drivers.

Given this lack of clarity a visitor may reasonably conclude that paying for a session as instructed by a sign suffices for compliance. An e-permit being mandatory in certain areas is not clear by the signage which fails the transparency test.

Under the consumer rights of act of 2015, contractual terms must be fair and transparent.
In absence of this clear statement should be interpreted in the consumers favour. Therefore by dint of payment alone should be sufficient making the parking notice unenforceable.

I request the IAS cancels the PCN on the grounds the signage fails to clearly inform visitors of the parking restrictions and creates unenforceable ambiguity.

Response was as follows.....

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 20/11/2024 10:39:03.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
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 23/10/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 17/10/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located throughout the site. All signage, as well as the overall site, has been independently audited and approved by our Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community (IPC). The signage states “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking exists”, going on to state that “Breach of any contractual terms and conditions will result in the driver being liable for a Parking Charge of £100”. And “By entering or remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the contractual terms”.

Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, the signage makes clear that all vehicles within this bay must be registered to a valid e-permit. The appellant has stated and provided evidence of the visitor parking payment, however, as per the Pay4Bay sign, it clearly states ‘this bay' which indicates that this is only for the bay that the sign is within, not the bay the vehicle was parked within. Therefore, the appellant didn't have a valid permit for the bay they were parked in, in accordance with the signage on site. While we note the appellant's comments, it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that they are parked in accordance with the advertised Terms and Conditions. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this opportunity however, by entering or remaining on this private land without reading the Terms and Conditions, then they are deemed to have accepted them immediately.

The vehicle was observed from 09:45:08, with the Parking Charge being issued at 11:11:00. This constitutes a parking period of 1 hour, 25 minutes and 52 seconds; during which time the vehicle was observed remaining on-site whilst not registered to a valid e-permit. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided, the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they were required to immediately remove the vehicle from site.

As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge has been issued correctly.

OK thank you. I guess I will just hold fire and fight it. Done it before and been successful. I took photos and sent but the more I look at them the more I cant believe I missed the fact it said visitor below. Apparently a lot of people make the same mistake but its silly really so I am not sure I will have much of a case in court.

Should I now appeal to the IAS?

Is there anything specific I should include?