Well, it has gone to the IAS and this is their findings
...
Dear Steven,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): 113521144
Vehicle Registration: STE911S
Date Issued: 19/11/2025
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis of not having a valid authorisation to park. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that parking is for authorised vehicles only and that vehicles must be registered on the white list to avoid a parking charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear.
The Operator has confirmed that they offer a consideration period within which the driver can read and consider the terms and decide whether or not to park. If the driver chooses not to read the sign or uses the time for their own purpose the period is at an end and they are deemed to have accepted the terms of parking by their actions.
If they cannot comply they must leave. There is no set time limit I must apply, although there are guidelines and the Operator may have a policy not to charge within a set time. The longer the vehicle is on site the less likely it is to be reasonable. As this is a small car park the consideration period of 5 minutes is sufficient and aligns with the single code of practice. The Appellant provides no evidence as to why the time they took was reasonable.
It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. If for any reason the driver is not able to comply with the terms and conditions they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge.
The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms. Therefore by parking in contravention of the agreed terms, the Appellant agrees to pay the charge.
The Appellant claims they were not parked as they did not leave the vehicle. Some definitions of ‘parking' refer to leaving the vehicle. Leave in this sense does not mean to walk away from the vehicle. It means to allow or cause to remain. I do not agree with the Appellant's definition of parking. By their definition they could remain there for an unspecified period of time and not be parked, then at some point not identified they would become parked. Clearly parking is a question of fact not degree. One cannot become parked after the passage of an indeterminate period of time. The code of practice defines parked as “being stationary other than in the course of driving.” This incorporates the position of the Appellant's vehicle.
The signage at this location clearly indicated to motorists the level of charges that were in force and the Appellant had the option to go elsewhere to park if they felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. In view of the fact that the Appellant chose to park there it confirms that the Appellant agreed to park in accordance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions including the level of the parking charge if it arose. In addition the recent case in the Supreme Court of Parking Eye and Beavis dealt in part with this issue and decided that that the amount of the parking charge was justified in view of the operator's overheads and expenses as well as by comparing the charges with those made in the public sector.
The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator. In any event the landowner authority is provided to me.
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.
"
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Show Posts
