Free Traffic Legal Advice

The parking operator does not now who the driver is.

They only have the keeper details.

The keeper cannot automatically be assumed to be the driver as in many instances a household has a vehicle which maybe routinely driven by more than one person.

When you enter a private car park, the contract is with the unknown driver and not the keeper.

PoFA allows a private parking company to shift liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper so long as certain criteria is met.

One critical criteria is that the NtK must be served on the keeper within 14 days of the event - if it is not then there can never be any keeper liability under PoFA.

In your case there is a very small time window for the operator to issue a second PCN with an amended contravention (such as 'Not parked in a marked bay') which could be deemed served just inside the 14 day window.

Non PoFA compliant PCNs are easy to defend when there is no keeper liability as the parking company has no one to chase.

Personally I wouldn't comment on where it WAS parked.

I would keep my comments purely focused on the fact that, "the vehicle was not parked within a disabled bay" - definitely do not mention the words 'cross-hatching' or 'hatched area' as that implies that a different contravention may have occurred and you do not want to project that narrative in case the matter moves onto POPLA.


On another note, the T&Cs are ridiculously written from a legal perspective since there appears to be three sets of T&Cs depending on which business the driver is attending - each set of terms is separated by the word "OR" meaning that the requirement to "park wholly in a marked bay" only applies if you are using One Stop or The Pets Place - the second and third set of T&Cs contains no such requirement.

I dispute liability for this Parking Charge Notice.

1.
There is no signage at the entrance or on the immediate approach to the site.

On entry, there is no indication that the land is controlled, that parking is subject to terms, or that a parking charge may apply.

The only signage is positioned inside the site, past the entrance, mounted on a wall and not facing incoming traffic and at the exit.


2.
The Parking Charge Notice states the reason as:

“Failure to display a valid Disabled badge.”

The inside signage states:

“Vehicles parked within a marked disabled bay must be fully and clearly displaying a valid disabled badge…”

This wording is explicit. The badge requirement applies only when a vehicle is parked within a marked disabled bay.

The vehicle was not parked within a marked disabled bay.

The photographic evidence shows:
    •    no rectangular bay beneath the vehicle
    •    no wheelchair symbol beneath the vehicle

The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.

Quote from: PCNPlonka on Today at 12:15:44 pm

Quote from: InterCity125 on Today at 12:08:45 pm

You do not appear to be parked in a disabled bay?

I'd agree I'm in the cross-hatched area rather than the bay itself, not sure what the legality/technicality is on this though, whether parking in the cross-hatched area counts as parking in the bay itself..

No it doesn't.

You have to understand that these privately issued PCNs are based on contract law.

The parking operator has issued you with a PCN which is based on 'breach of contract' with the specific allegation that you were not showing a disabled badge in a situation where you were contractually obliged to do so.

The pictures appear to show the vehicle occupying a hatched area and NOT a disabled bay and as such it appears that the stated breach of contract did not occur.

It's not for the keeper to either come up with or imagine other potential breaches of contract which may or may not have occurred - all the keeper can do is defend the specific allegation which has been made against them.

At this point I would suggest responding as keeper (do not identify the driver) on the grounds that the specified breach of contract never occurred since there was no requirement to display a disabled badge when parking in the location where the vehicle is pictured.

Post up your appeal before sending - DO NOT SEND AN APPEAL YET as we need to let some time pass to avoid them sending a more compliant PCN.

Do you have any pictures of signage at the location? We can examine what the blue badge requirement are.

Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice

I dispute liability for this Parking Charge Notice.

The charge is unenforceable due to the absence of any contract at the point of entry and, in any event, because the stated contravention does not apply on the facts.


1. No contract formed – no signage at the entrance:

There is no signage at the entrance or on the immediate approach to the site.

On entry, there is no indication that the land is controlled, that parking is subject to terms, or that a parking charge may apply.

The only signage relied upon by the operator is positioned inside the site, past the entrance, mounted on a wall and not facing incoming traffic.

Any sign encountered only after entry is legally incapable of forming a contract, as acceptance has already occurred by entering and parking.

An offer must be communicated before acceptance. That did not occur.

This failure also undermines compliance with International Parking Community, Code of Practice clause 12.3, which requires signage to be installed and present prior to enforcement.

Signage that is only visible after entry does not satisfy the purpose of that requirement.


2. The alleged contravention does not apply:

The Parking Charge Notice states the reason as:

“Failure to display a valid Disabled badge.”

The site signage creates this obligation only in the following circumstance:

“Vehicles parked within a marked disabled bay must be fully and clearly displaying a valid disabled badge …”

This wording is explicit and limited. The badge requirement applies only when a vehicle is parked within a marked disabled bay.

The vehicle was not parked within a marked disabled bay. It was positioned on cross-hatched markings adjacent to the bay, which form an access zone.

The photographic evidence shows:

    •    no rectangular disabled bay beneath the vehicle

    •    no wheelchair symbol beneath the vehicle

    •    positioning within a hatched area, not a bay

As the vehicle was not parked in a marked disabled bay, the badge requirement was never triggered. It is therefore impossible to be in breach of it.


3. A cross-hatched access area is not a parking bay:

Cross-hatched areas next to disabled bays are access zones intended for door opening and wheelchair transfer. They are not parking bays and are not defined as such by the signage.

The operator’s terms do not extend disabled-bay conditions to hatched access areas. Any ambiguity must be construed against the drafter.


4. Exit signage is irrelevant:

Any signage positioned at the exit is legally meaningless. Contractual terms cannot be imposed retrospectively, after entry or after the alleged breach opportunity.


5. ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished:

The operator may rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which turned on clear, prominent entrance signage and correctly applied terms. Those facts do not apply here. This case involves no entrance signage and misapplication of the operator’s own terms.


6. Conclusion:

    •    No entrance signage means no offer and no contract

    •    In any event, the disabled-badge requirement applies only to marked disabled bays

    •    The vehicle was not parked in a marked disabled bay

    •    The stated contravention does not apply

The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.

Private car parks do not have to offer free parking to blue badge holders, but they can implement their own contracts to blue badge holders and restrict areas to those people who display them if they want to. It should all come down to the contract terms offered in their signs, and accepted by parking, if they’re appropriately prominent and clear.