Free Traffic Legal Advice

We now have had a response to our appeal to the Independent body, so we'd appreciate any further advice at this point.  Thank you in advance.

We would like to clarify that this Parking Charge was issued for insufficient paid time. The contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an underpayment for the vehicle registration mark. As there was no payment made for vehicle registration mark RJ64NYF, we can confirm the Parking Charge was correctly issued for insufficient paid time. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration mark and for the duration of their stay when using this car park.
Firstly, Smart Parking Limited would like to make the assessor aware that we acknowledge the Appellant stating that they were not the driver on the date of contravention. However, as seen below in correspondence, the original appeal made to Smart Parking was also made by the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Appellant Claire fox stating “I paid the fee the day before as I knew I would be in a rush in the morning. The postcode on the station website took me to the drop off and taxi section at the front of the station. The signage to the longer term parking was non existent and I am not from Milton Keynes so am unfamiliar with it. I drove around for 30 mins, asked 3 people before I found the car park. I thought it was the correct car park as it was right by the station.” to being the driver of the vehicle on the date of contravention. Due to liability being accepted and the registered keeper confirming they were the driver on the day, the parking charge has been pursued correctly.
We would like to make the assessor aware that although we do acknowledge the appellants comments and evidence in regards to paying for parking however the appellant has made payment via SABA Parking which is not a valid payment method on site therefore no payment has been made and the parking charge has been issued correctly.
All signs on site are compliant with the International Parking Community (IPC) and The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice June 2024. Signs and Surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers. Clause 3.1.1, of the single code states that “An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, unless: subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited”. It also states in clause 3.1.3 a) that signs must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. There are several signs situated around the car park that advise of the tariff, terms and conditions, we can confirm all signage on site is IPC approved, and compliant with The Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Please be aware all signs are set to a standardized height, regulations and written in clearly and intelligible language. There is no ambiguous language or jargon on any of the Smart Parking signs at this site.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Within the single Code of Practice, it states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.” We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the driver remained on site for 328 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice.
We would like to make the assessor aware that the grace period given on site is 10 minutes overall. Within the single Code of Practice, it states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.” Whilst we acknowledge this, we would like to confirm that we offer the 10 minutes as an overall duration as all motorists have the opportunity to purchase a ticket at any point throughout their duration. As the site in question is monitored by ANPR cameras, the system is able to assign a payment according to the duration in which a motorist has remained on site, this includes back dating a payment if a motorist was to purchase a ticket at the end of their stay. Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the motorist remained on site for 328 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice.[/i]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Unfortunately her appeal closed a significant avenue for appeal by naming herself as the driver. Without having done this, the notice is not compliant with legislation required to transfer liability from the unknown and unnamed driver to the registered keeper. Smart are often failing on this point. Oh well.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
says

Quote

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

The IAS will not uphold her appeal, they rarely (4% of the time) do.


Thanks, I now realise this after she'd appealed.  Are there any other options.  She says the signage says it was MK Station Car Park so she thought she was in the right place and had bought a valid ticket?