Free Traffic Legal Advice

What was the date on their notice, which is not a fine? If it was later than 11 March your case is stronger.

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

I appealed the ticket on the grounds that there should be a ten minute grace period and that we needed to change our infant son, so I referred to the Equality Act 2010. Appealing on these grounds was declined as I am apparently meant to provide proof (yes, I have been tempted to put a soiled nappy in the post to them). I also stated that the PCN did not arrive within 14 days, but it seems that I am expected to prove this, which is impossible when the PCN is sent second class in an otherwise unmarked pre-paid envelope (as previously mentioned the alleged contravention was 27th February, but the PCN didn’t arrive until 20th March). This seems to me an unreasonable standard of proof placed on the part of the registered keeper.

This is the IAS's response in full:


"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his 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. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment covering the entirety of the parking event as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate grace period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant and I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines. I note the Appellant suggests that they received the notice late however they provide no proof of this. The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments' to remove barriers which may discriminate against people with protected characteristics. In this instance 'reasonable adjustments' to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger parking spaces or amenities for people whose mobility is impaired and could include lowered payment machines etc. The Appellant provides no evidence as to their protected characteristics and therefore on the evidence presented to this appeal I am satisfied that the Operator has complied with their responsibilities in this instance.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly 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

The original PCN is fairly standard, as far as I can tell. It gives the date of (alleged) contravention 27/2/26 and the date issued as 09/03/26 (it arrived 20/3/26). It stated 'Notice to Keeper- Parking charge followed by the amount and potential for discounts or increases and that any charge will not exceed £170.It then included photos of my car entering and exiting with details of dates and times. The rest is payment options, GDPR etc.

I made no mention of who the driver was and referred to everything in the third person. This is my appeal, verbatim, made via theias.org:

"No notice was given at the time of parking and no Notice To Keeper was received within 14 days, as per the Protection of Freedoms Act. The date of the alleged contravention was 27th February, but the notice was dated 9th March, and not received by the registered keeper until 20th March.

According to Smart Parking the driver had paid for 60 minutes but they state had overstayed by 13 minutes. It is my understanding that ATA members, as Smart Parking is, are obliged to offer a ten minute ‘grace period’. I am advised that the driver was delayed in leaving the car park due to having to change their two year old child, which would account for a minor overstay beyond the grace period of three minutes."