Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you b789, this gives me confidence (plus a laugh at your barista comment    ). I can really see how people must cave in, it's a ridiculous process. I will come back when I receive the LoC. Thanks again for your help.

Thank you - I'm planning to appeal to the council with the below. Are there any suggested changes?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to challenge the above PCN issued on 26/10/2025 for the alleged contravention of Code 621 – “Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.”

The location in question is a designated part-footway parking bay, where vehicles are permitted to park partially on the pavement. My vehicle was parked substantially within the marked area. As the enclosed photographs clearly show, the bay markings are worn and incomplete, making it impossible to determine precisely where the permitted area ends.

The alleged contravention appears to have been issued on the basis that the vehicle was not wholly within the marked area. However, any minor encroachment (if any) was due solely to the unclear and deteriorated markings of the bay. The boundary of the authorised parking area was not adequately indicated, contrary to Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which requires that restrictions be clearly marked and maintained so that they can be easily seen and understood by motorists.

In addition, the property opposite the bay's back garden is currently being used as an active building site and temporary carpark, with frequent loading and unloading by large commercial vehicles which also need to access the garden. In order to maintain safe clearance for passing traffic and construction activity, it is necessary to park tightly on the already narrow road. My vehicle was positioned responsibly to avoid obstruction or hazard to other road users.

The vehicle was otherwise fully within the intended parking area and caused no obstruction or safety issue. Furthermore, the vehicle was aligned with other parked vehicles and the telegraph pole in the corner of the bay. Any deviation (if any) from the bay markings was minimal — de minimis — and does not warrant formal enforcement action.

For the reasons above, I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and that this PCN should be cancelled.

Hi there, I'm hoping for some advice on fighting a recent PCN received yesterday 27/10 on my vehicle windscreen.

Location: Forest Road E11, resident's permit area. Street view link.

PCN reason: Alleged parking "outside the marked bay."
"621 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (one wheel on footway)" PCN images:




The infraction: One wheel appears to have fractionally overshot the white hatched markings on the curb I'd estimate by only an inch or two. The markings are also hatched, making the boundary unclear in relation to the wheel. Pictures here:





Context:

- It's an extremely tight street with garages on one side and no footway there, and the resident bays (where my car was parked) are on the curb/footway side.

- The two houses directly opposite this bay (with their back gardens backing onto Forest Road) are undergoing a major renovation. They are using their back gardens as a staging and parking area, meaning there are constant large articulated lorries, deliveries of materials and builders' vans accessing the property. My car was parked to give maximum operational space for these large commercial vehicles to pass and maneuvre safely without risk of hitting my car or causing a blockage to other drivers or pedestrians.

Image to show proximity to building site:

- My car's parking position, despite the fractional potential overreach, caused zero obstruction to traffic, pedestrians, or adjacent bays.

Is there any potential appeal here perhaps on the basis of de minimis, or with the mitigating circumstance that the car had to be positioned in such a way to aid general traffic flow around large builders' vehicles? Any advice on the strongest legal angles appreciated.

Thanks!

Hi there,

I've appealed to the IAS using the exact wording provided helpfully provided above. They have responded with the below Prima Facie case. It ignores most of the points raised and focuses on the overstay. As the appellant I have also not confirmed who the driver was at any stage so their report that the appellant was the driver is not evidenced.
 
 They have also provided two documents alongside their prima facie case, one document which is a compilation of the documents in the case so far, and a second document consisting of a map of the land and signage images. I can provide this if needed in image format.
 
 I now must make a response to the operator by midnight on the 26th, I imagine by again requesting answers to the points that have been ignored (especially those relating to the late delivery of the notice which is my main basis for appeal) and refuting the statement they've made that the appellant is the driver, but if anyone has any advice, please could you suggest how I should respond? Thanks as always for your help.


IAS Prima Facie case:
 


"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/09/2025 14:01:15.



The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.

The appellant was the keeper.

The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..

The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 11/08/2025.

ANPR/CCTV was used.

The Notice to Keeper was sent on 11/08/2025.

A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.

The ticket was issued on 31/07/2025.

The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.

The charge is based in Contract.




The operator made the following comments...

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 an underpayment for the VRM LC12GNP, the PC was issued correctly for insufficient paid time. We can further confirm the Appellant paid for a total amount of 240 minutes, however the vehicle was parked on site for a total of 265 minutes, therefore overstaying a total of 25 minutes. It is the responsibility of the Appellant as a 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.



We can confirm that the above parking charge was issued under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). The parking contravention occurred on 31/07/2025, the registered keeper details were received on 08/08/2025, after which the PC was promptly issued on 11/08/2025 within the 14 days required under POFA 2012. As such the registered keeper is liable for the parking charge.



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 clear 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 265 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 265 minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within the single Code of Practice."

Thanks so much for the guidance, that really helps me understand how the presumption works.
For next steps, and on the basis of my actions so far, would you suggest that in my IAS appeal (or later defence if it came to small claims) I should specifically put Smart Parking to strict proof of posting, referring to PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) about retaining posting records? I’ve seen advice elsewhere that IAS uphold over 95% of PCNs (apparently they even use that figure in their marketing to parking companies). Is that really the case? Should I assume IAS will reject my appeal, and prepare for the possibility of small claims with a defence based on POFA - i.e. that Smart Parking would need to prove actual posting and delivery in line with the statutory presumption? Is there even any point going the IAS route if they are so operator-friendly? Apologies for any novice questions, I've not had to do anything like this before and would like to understand what I'm committing to by pursuing this. Thank you again for your help.