Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I’ve received a Notice of Intended Prosecution from West Yorkshire Police for allegedly exceeding a variable speed limit on the M62 Westbound between Junctions 28 and 27.

Details:

Vehicle: MA23 ZHX
Offence date/time: 30/09/2025 at 22:10
Recorded speed: 58 mph
Speed limit in force: 50 mph (variable)
Device type: Automatic camera device (smart motorway)
Reference: 0133052244152220

ACTUAL LETTER UPLOADED HERE: ; https://postimg.cc/ZWJjFpQY (page 1)  and
(page 2) https://postimg.cc/sBzYRhSX

This seems to be at the lower end of enforcement, and I’ve not attended a speed awareness course in over three years.
Before responding, I’d appreciate some guidance on:

The likelihood of being offered a Speed Awareness Course instead of points/fine.

Whether there’s any realistic basis to challenge or mitigate this (e.g. signage, calibration, variable limit timing, etc.).

Any procedural points I should be aware of when completing the online driver admission form.

Happy to share a redacted copy of the NIP if helpful.
Many thanks in advance for any advice.

Hi all, 

I’d appreciate some advice on a private parking charge I’ve received. 

See: 
- Appendix 1 = the original PCN 
- Appendix 2 = my appeal submission 
- Appendix 3 = the rejection letter 

PCN Ref: 3122801 
Operator: Euro Parking Services 
Location: Coppergate Shopping Centre, York 
Vehicle: OW16VOC 
Date of issue: 04/09/2025 

In my appeal (Appendix 2), I argued: 

1. CCTV shows the vehicle was on site for only 4 minutes (18:19:42 to 18:23:46). The IPC Code of Practice requires a minimum 5-minute grace period. 
2. The car was not parked in a bay, only briefly stopped while passengers got in/out, with the driver present. 
3. Signage was inadequate. Their own photos of the signs were timestamped after the vehicle had left. Signs are mounted high, with dense text, unreadable in such a short time. 
4. Mitigating factors applied: it was raining heavily and this was clearly just a quick drop-off. 

Despite this, Euro Parking Services rejected my appeal (Appendix 3). 

My questions to the forum: 
a) Do I have solid grounds to escalate this to the IAS? 
b) Is it worth fighting further, or better to wait and see if they take it to court? 
c) Any practical advice from others who’ve dealt with Euro Parking Services? 

Thanks in advance for your guidance. 




================================================== 
== APPENDIX 1: PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (NOTICE TO KEEPER) == 
Summary: Original notice issued alleging contravention on double yellow lines, with a recorded stay of just over 4 minutes. 
================================================== 

Issuer: Euro Parking Services 

Location: Piccadilly, The Coppergate Shopping Centre, York, YO1 9PB 

Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC 250 D 4Matic Sport Auto 
Registration: OW16VOC 

PCN Reference: 3122801 
Date of Issue: 04/09/2025 
Contravention Date: 30/08/2025 
Contravention Time: 18:23 

Contravention: Parked on double yellow lines / crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park. 

Period of Parking: From 18:19:42 to 18:23:46 (00h:04m:04s) 

Charge: £100 payable (reduced to £60 if paid by 18/09/2025) 

Notes: 
- Liability is with the registered keeper unless transferred. 
- Payment or appeal must be made within 28 days. 
- Failure to respond may result in recovery of the full amount. 


================================================== 
== APPENDIX 2: MY ORIGINAL APPEAL SUBMISSION == 
Summary: Appeal argued that stay was under grace period, vehicle not “parked,” signage inadequate, and mitigating circumstances applied. 
================================================== 

Subject: Formal Appeal – Parking Charge Notice Ref: 3122801 
Vehicle Registration: OW16VOC 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

I am appealing against Parking Charge Notice 3122801, issued on 04/09/2025 in respect of my vehicle, registration OW16VOC, at the Coppergate Shopping Centre, York. 

The alleged contravention states that the vehicle was "Parked on double yellow lines/restricted area" between 18:19:42 and 18:23:46. Your own evidence shows the vehicle was present for just 4 minutes and 4 seconds before departing. 

1. GRACE PERIOD 
The IPC Code of Practice requires operators to allow a minimum grace period of 5 minutes for drivers to read signs and leave if they do not accept the terms. As your evidence confirms, the vehicle was present for less than 5 minutes, so no breach occurred. 

2. VEHICLE NOT PARKED 
The CCTV stills show the vehicle was not parked in a bay, but briefly stopped with the driver in attendance while passengers entered/exited. Stopping briefly is not equivalent to “parking” as defined under contract law or the IPC Code. 

3. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE 
The signage at the site is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 1). The terms are written in small print, located on a wall, and cannot be reasonably read in such a short time. Your evidence even shows the sign at 18:24:11 — after the vehicle had already departed at 18:23:46. This proves I had no opportunity to read the terms before leaving. 

4. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
The CCTV footage shows it was raining heavily, with passengers using umbrellas. The stop was clearly for drop-off/pick-up and lasted under 5 minutes, further demonstrating no intent to park. 

For all of the above reasons, the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly and must be cancelled. Should you refuse, I request a formal rejection letter together with a valid IAS appeal code so that I may escalate this matter. 

Yours faithfully, 
[Name removed] 


================================================== 
== APPENDIX 3: APPEAL REJECTION LETTER == 
Summary: Euro Parking Services rejected the appeal, stating that stopping counts as parking, signage was adequate, and the PCN was issued correctly. 
================================================== 

18/09/2025 

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number 3122801 (Vehicle: OW16VOC) 

Site: Piccadilly, The Coppergate Shopping Centre 
Issue date: 04/09/2025 

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on 17/09/2025 in relation to the above PCN. 

We have reviewed your appeal and in doing so, we took into account the representations you made in support of your appeal as well as evidence submitted. We reached the decision that in this instance, the Parking Charge was issued correctly for the following reason(s). 

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around the car park. These include that vehicles are not permitted to park on restricted areas such as double yellow/red lines, crosshatched bays, and no parking zones. According to our records your vehicle was incorrectly parked, we have no option but to reject this appeal. 

Please note that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at multiple locations around the site. It is the responsibility of motorists to read and comply. Our car parks are audited by the International Parking Community (IPC) to ensure compliance with signage standards. 

We note your comments regarding the circumstances of your parking. Please be aware that the stopping or standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, is classified as parking. This includes vehicles that may have been temporarily stopped, even if for a brief period. 

We are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and that sufficient attention was brought to the driver. In light of the aforementioned, your appeal is rejected. We will not accept any further appeals. 

We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount of £60.00. Once this period passes it will not be offered again. 

If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Appeals must be submitted within 28 days of the date of this letter. If you choose this option, the Parking Charge will automatically increase to £100. 

If a payment is not received by the above date we will commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges (legal and court costs). Should judgment be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. 

Yours sincerely, 
Appeals Department 
Euro Parking Services Ltd