Free Traffic Legal Advice

Driver parked on a single yellow during restricted hours (9.30am - 11pm) on Harmood Street NW1 (GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Yyim2JxeYuq9AnrF8) - Camden.  Driver missed the change of CPZ signage - should have parked across the road on Talacre Road where no restrictions apply on Saturday/Sunday!

I can see the signage showing the beginning of the restricted zone on GSV so not sure how they were missed, but driver was in a hurry with 2 x young kids so these things do happen. 

Seems like Camden have the driver bang to rights here and I'm inclined to just pay the PCN at the reduced rate but posting in any case, just in case I'm missing something or they may be an avenue to appeal.  PCN images below:




Thanks in advance...

Response just in from the 'Independent Appeals Service':

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to remain parked beyond the expiry of the ticket displayed in their vehicle, having been allowed an adequate grace period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

I won't be rushing to contact the operator to make payment.  It seems that the IAS adjudicator is only concerned with whether the ticket was validly issued, rather than whether there is a liability upon the keeper to pay. 

I presume the operator will be in touch in due course to request payment and threaten a court claim.  Is this operator likely to proceed with the issue of a claim?

Thanks - response submitted.  Given the clear failure to comply with PoFA as you set out - and which I with no prior knowledge of the law was able to verify independently in a matter of minutes - it would be indeed be farcical if IAS doesn't adjucate in favour of the appelant. 

On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled, which I struggle to see any valid reason for.

I have received a response to the appeal, text as follows from the IAS site:

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 10/07/2025 09:51:00.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 09/05/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The vehicle was parked with no valid parking session/permit in a Pay and Display Car Park.
Issue Reason: Expired Ticket
Photographic evidence held for this PCN: 15 Photographs.

Our photographic evidence shows the vehicle was displaying an expired ticket and as such the vehicle was legitimately issued with a Parking Charge Notice. A ticket is only valid until the expiry time printed and no longer. It is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they return on or before the expiry time. We have a duty to the landowners who contact us to carry out periodic patrols on their behalf to ensure the rules are adhered to.
Our photographic evidence clearly shows that the ticket displayed within the vehicle expired at 14.30 and the PCN was issued at 15.03, therefore your vehicle had been parked on site for 33 minutes without valid authorisation. Please see attached evidence.
It is a driver's responsibility to ensure they have purchased a ticket to cover the stay required within the car park. A motorist would be expected to consider the time they require before purchasing a pay and display ticket.

In this case there is no requirement to issue a Notice To Keeper. The PCN was affixed to the vehicle at the time of contravention that the appellant admits has been received. The PCN states that a parking charge of £100 is due from the driver within 28 days of the date of issue of this notice. Had the appellant not been the driver at the time of contravention, then they should have transferred liability to the driver. They have however, appealed the PCN themselves, we will pursue the PCN holding the appellant liable as the Registered Keeper. Had no correspondence been received from the appellant then after 28 days, we would obtain the Registered Keeper details from the DVLA. There is no need in this instance as the appellant has provided their details. No Notice to Keeper is required.

There is clear and concise signage displayed at the site. All our sites and signage is audited by our governing body, the IPC. The terms and conditions of parking are very clear at the site, there are numerous terms and conditions signs throughout the site and also the tariff board contains this information.

This PCN was legitimately issued for an Expired Ticket.

We also note that the appellant's appeal is considerably different to their initial appeal to Armtrac Security Services.

The signage at the site states that:

• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit.

• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.

The appellant's vehicle was not covered for the entire parking period where it remained parked on private land. The terms and conditions signs at the site make this requirement very clear to motorists.

We, Armtrac Security Services, are contracted by the landowner to patrol this site ensuring that the terms of parking are adhered to. The signage here states that:

• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit

• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.

• No overnight parking/camping between the hours of 1100pm - 0800am.

• All vehicles must be parked in accordance with all other signage located throughout the site.

Please see tariff board located at entrance for payment information. In the event of a faulty payment terminal, please either use an alternative terminal, pay via the cashless payment facility, or leave the car park without using the facilities. Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted.

By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions.

Breach of ANY terms or conditions will result in the driver being liable for a
PARKING CHARGE of £100

We have followed the guidelines correctly and these rules are put in place by the land owner(s), not ourselves and our officers are instructed to enforce them. When entering a private car park it is for the motorist to consider the rules of parking in order to determine whether parking is suitable for their requirement's; the appellant chose to park their vehicle here at Maenporth Beach Private Pay and Display Car Park and by parking here they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of parking. By Failing to display a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or have a valid cashless payment session covering the entire parking period; the rules of parking were breached and therefore they were legitimately issued with this PCN in accordance with the terms of parking displayed on the signage as a contractual term.

This PCN was correctly issued to the appellant.

We have enclosed Notice to Keeper, all correspondence between Armtrac and the appellant and all photographic evidence held for the PCN.

Please refer to uploads for Site Map, Site Photographs, Signs and Landowner Authority.

The operator response includes my original appeal text, which I didn't previously save - redacted copy attached as PDF.  The appeal was made as keeper and doesn't identify the driver.  The other documents provided are the original PCN, photographs of the vehicle etc already supplied above.  They did not provide the contract with the landowner. 

They also provided these documents, not specific to the case:

Operator Documents (Pre-Loaded)
Maenporth Site Photographs.pdf
Site Map
Blank document.docx
pay & Display Entrance Sign (KBT0011-127)
Maenporth Terms and Conditions (KBT0011-129)
Maenporth Ringo Signage (KBT0011-130)

In case these are useful I can upload somewhere for retrieval.

Though, I gather the main point is that the operator is continuing to seek enforcement against the keeper, following a notice to driver (PCN), when a notice to keeper has not been issued. 

The IAS provides the following options:

The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.

You now 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. You have until 16/07/2025 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- 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.

Shall I immediately refer or is there value restating the point re the failure to issue a NtK?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

There is no keeper liability in this case. Here’s why:

1. Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the vehicle on 09/05/2025, which constitutes a Notice to Driver under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

2. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued

Since the Keeper (assuming they did not identify as the driver) submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27 after the NtD), and the rejection letter dated 30/06/2025 makes no mention of a Notice to Keeper being issued, the operator has not complied with PoFA requirements to establish Keeper liability.

Under PoFA Schedule 4, if a NtD is issued, the operator must serve a compliant NtK between day 28 and day 56 after the date of the NtD to hold the Keeper liable. Since no NtK has been served, the keeper cannot be held liable.

3. Only the driver can be pursued

Without a valid NtK served in accordance with PoFA, the operator can only pursue the driver, not the keeper. If the keeper has not identified the driver, and no NtK has been issued, the operator has no lawful basis to enforce the charge against the keeper.

Got it - thanks.  So 4 July is D-Day.

Don't respond yet as they still have few days in which to issue an NtK. What did you put in as your appeal? You never showed us.

I don't have the actual text of the appeal (I just saved a copy of the filing acknowledgement).

Broadly though, the appeal didn't make any technical arguments, the main point I made was that I had contacted the owners of the cafe and they had advised me to contact the car park operator to request the ticket be cancelled.  So, I was seeking cancellation of the ticket at the cafe owners' request/direction.

You're right of course - I tried in writing to one of the cafe owners and they weren't helpful, as before. 

I've set a calendar reminder for the appeal and will confirm once something happens!

The driver visited Maenporth Beach car park on 9 May 2025, purchased a 2 hour parking ticket to cover the period 12:30 to 14:30 and overstayed at the cafe on the beach, not returning to the vehicle until after a PCN was issued for overstay.  The PCN shows an observed time of 14:42 and a time of issue of 15:03. 


I have sinced phoned the cafe where I was dining while the car was parked and which the car park is owned/leased by; they advised that they couldn't cancel the ticket as the car park was managed and suggested instead contacting the parking company to seek cancellation of the PCN.  This has exhausted the path of least resistance and I suspect the parking company is less likely to take pity on the driver than the cafe would one of its customers. 


PCN front and back here:






I didn't take pics of the terms/signage in the car park at the time of visit and I don't live locally.  Here's the GSV however in case it's helpful:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.1261444,-5.0946274,3a,90y,111.91h,64.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgks3We4H-6684bg_TjU6nQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D25.263596120601278%26panoid%3Dgks3We4H-6684bg_TjU6nQ%26yaw%3D111.9092559953294!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


Any advice which may allow the driver to avoid payment of this PCN - even if the effort involved in avoidance is disproportionate to the value of the 'parking charge', would be appreciated.  I do detest penalties such as these so am willing to spend time on the avoidance.


Thanks!