Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Smart Parking - Willen Lake, Milton Keynes
« on: November 28, 2025, 04:38:09 pm »
IAS rejected appeal, saying:
"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 Appellant's vehicle was recorded entering the site at 17.56 and leaving at 19.16. The Appellant paid for parking for 1 hour at 18.04. The vehicle therefore overstayed the paid parking session.
The Appellant raises an issue with compliance with PoFA.
The Notice to Keeper is dated 27th August 2025 and assuming posted on that date would be with the Appellant two working days later, the 29th August 2025, and deemed served within the parameters set by Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 PoFA.
Having considered all the issues raised and the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "
Let's see what happens now. It's interesting that the IAS ignored the legal point about the legislation specifically talking about "period of parking" which driving in and out of a site is obviously not.
"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 Appellant's vehicle was recorded entering the site at 17.56 and leaving at 19.16. The Appellant paid for parking for 1 hour at 18.04. The vehicle therefore overstayed the paid parking session.
The Appellant raises an issue with compliance with PoFA.
The Notice to Keeper is dated 27th August 2025 and assuming posted on that date would be with the Appellant two working days later, the 29th August 2025, and deemed served within the parameters set by Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 PoFA.
Having considered all the issues raised and the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "
Let's see what happens now. It's interesting that the IAS ignored the legal point about the legislation specifically talking about "period of parking" which driving in and out of a site is obviously not.