Free Traffic Legal Advice

Honestly this is so infuriating. Where is the common sense?

The adjudicator made their decision on 29/12/2025 16:59:33.

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.

A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately.

In this case, the Appellant made no effort to read the signage. The CCTV shows that they remained in the vehicle, looking at their mobile phone. They were therefore not considering the terms and conditions of parking and are not entitled to a free period of parking.

The courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked for the reasons stated above.

The NTK was validly served and the specified period of parking was from 12:46:33 to 12:48:11.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

We re-iterate our prima facie comments;

The appellants comments do not affect the validity of the charge,

The Single code of practise defines being parked as a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving with a note that a vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle and/or turned off the ignition.

The vehicle has parked in contravention to the terms and therefore a charge is now due

I have the option to update and add more comments or refer the case to the arbitrator

Here's the update from the operator on the IAS

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/11/2025 14:08:01.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/10/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 25/10/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
We note the appellants comments, however it does not exempt them from the terms and conditions of the site. We are instructed by the freehold landowner to enforce parking on site in accordance with the displayed terms. There are numerous signs on site and It is the motorists responsibility when parking on private land to review the terms and conditions of the site and park accordingly. The displayed terms state that parking is only permitted for pre-authorised Autodeals vehicles. The exemption data shows that the vehicle was not pre-authorised and therefore was not permitted to park on site.

We note the appellants comments, however they do not affect the validity of the charge.

The contravention photos provided show that the appellant parked on site. After a period of time a passenger is seen entering the vehicle with goods before the vehicle proceeds to leave. The appellant has therefore parked and made use of the land.

The appellant makes reference to a consideration period. A consideration period is afforded to every motorists to review the terms and conditions of a site and decide whether to park. It is not for motorists to make use of the land. By parking and making use of the facilities the appellant has parked and accepted the displayed terms and therefore is no longer afforded a consideration period.

All notices were sent in accordance with POFA and therefore the registered keeper can be held liable.

By parking on site and making use of the facilities without being pre-authorised the appellant is in direct contravention to the terms and conditions of the site and therefore contractually agree to pay a parking charge.

utter brown stuff

Yeah it felt very copy/paste pre-canned BS.

Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive.

Should I include all these points in my appeal?

Not obstructing anything or stopped in a hatched area.

Yes, they have photographs of the passenger returning to the car.

Thank you all for the contributions so far.

The general consensus seems to be that the consideration period is enough to go on. I've reviewed all photos captured by the operator and they cover a period of 3m 7s. I don't understand how those timestamps relate to the period given in the NtK, but they still fall well within the 5m consideration period, so I'm happy to proceed with the appeal on that basis.

My final question relates to whether or not I should mention the consequences to the operator of not following the code of practice, including:
* The requirement to notify the ATA of any breaches of the code of practice
* The potential for sanction points for non-compliance
* Perhaps the fact that I could complain to the ATA in the case that the appeal is not successful

My feeling is that this could go either way - it could add credibility to the appeal, or it could get their backs up.

Or maybe I should just complain?

Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or
include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator
must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in
Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear
that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the
parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled

EDIT: Hmm - confused a bit now because the NtK says "If you wish to challenge the validity of this charge then you must use the Appeals Procedure"

>  Stopping but not leaving the car can well be described as parking

Sure but I read there is legal precedent for this not being the case.

https://contestorlegal.co.uk/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking/