Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't think I have a silver bullet, I'm quite stubborn though and if the deal is that I put up with all the letters and go to court and worst case scenario* have to pay £180 quid instead of the £100 fine then it's worth it for the challenge and the experience and to waste their time.

Fine. Your eyes are open.

*- worse case scenario is that you might move at some stage during the process and they might lose track of you, possibly leading to court papers not being actioned(because they're served where you live now and you don't receive them), a default judgment being entered against you and a negative effect on your credit rating. But this couldn't happen if you keep on top of matters.

Hey Team,

here's the reply on IAS -

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent to the appellant states: “Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Notice is given, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is proved..”

2. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; by failing to provide those details, the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice.

3. The design, wording and layout of the NTK complies with the IPC Code of Practice.

What do you suggest next?

No surprise about the IAS decision. You are now in the “limbo” stage and will have to weather the useless debt collector demands. Until you receive a Letter of Claim or an actual claim, there is nothing more for you to do.

They have up to 6 years from the event date to issue a claim. As already advised elsewhere, should you move address within tht period, you must contact their DPO and instruct them to rectify your address for service of documents and they must erase your old address.

As your appeal was based on their failure to comply with the requirements of PoFA, do you really want to throw your wife under the bus by identifying and admitting her as the driver?

Just wondered if I notified them of my wife's name then they might send her a notice and then let her off because of the breast feeding.

Has any of the process so far led you to believe that Excel are in the business of letting people off?

You of course do have the option to name the driver, who will in turn receive their own notice. Whether you do this is your choice and depends on your proposed approach. If you're prepared to fight this all the way, then whoever is being pursued will need to be prepared to defend the matter in court. At present, that person if you. If you name your wife as the driver, it'll be her.

I suppose my query was more that I felt like the breastfeeding argument may be our strongest argument against the PCN and wondered if by making this about me as the keeper they're trying to avoid the breastfeeding issue, but if it doesn't make a difference, I'm happy to continue as I am. How do I respond now on the IAS, or should I just refer it to the arbitration and have it done with?

Yes my response does mention the POFA - this is what I sent them as advised by a board member further up this thread.




1.  The keeper was not driving.  The operator, therefore,  purports to hold rely on Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to hold the keeper liable.  However, in order to do so, the operator must deliver to the keeper within the 'relevant period' as defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) a notice to keeper ('NTK') that satisfies the strict requirements of POFA, including the requirements of POFA paragraph 9(2)(f).  Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA is insufficient.

2. The relevant period defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) is 'the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended' which has now expired so the operator cannot now deliver a new POFA-compliant NTK.

3. The operator's purported NTK is not POFA-compliant because it does not include the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) which states that a NTK must:

 warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid

4.  The warning in the operator's purported NTK does not include the mandatory statement that the creditor's right to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable conditions under POFA being met.

5.  The operator may seek to argue that their warning conforms to the wording required by the IPC Code of Practice.  However POFA is an Act of Parliament and is law.  The IPC Code of Conduct is not law.  While the operator might in retrospect consider that it made a mistake in choosing to comply with the IPC Code of Practice rather than the law, IAS adjudicators must apply the law and cannot consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances, whether made by the operator or the IPC.

6.  The operator's summary of the Equality Act is breathtaking in its ignorance.  Reasonable adjustment for breastfeeding mothers is expressly required by the Act and is not limited to the examples cited by the operator. Subsections 17(3) and (4) read as follows:-

(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.

(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding..

7.  The child in question was less than 26 weeks old at the time of the alleged parking event.  A copy of the child's birth certificate has been uploaded. The operator is not entitled to any further 'evidence' of breastfeeding.

8.  It is immaterial whether the unadjusted consideration period is 5 or 20 minutes.  The adjusted amount of time required by the driver (who was alone with her baby) was 22 minutes and she must be allowed that time by law.  Please note that this is a respectful demand for application of a legal right and not a request for consideration of mitigating or extenuating circumstances

OP IMO, this is losing its focus.

Without offering a view as to whether the account is accurate, if you want to run with it then IMO, your appeal to IAS should be simple and targeted:

The driver was my wife, therefore I have a detailed account of what occurred.

She was driving alone from ** to *** with our **-month old on board. The journey had taken longer than anticipated and ** was due a feed and communicated their demands in the only way they knew;

My wife was breast-feeding at the time;

She pulled in to ***, read the signs and was aware that if she stayed for any period then she would have to pay the necessary tariff. She was happy to do this, however, she had a more, literally, pressing demand on her time. She therefore fed and winded our child which took approx. *** minutes. She then adjusted her clothing and took them with her to pay. As it turned out she entered the site at *** and did not pay until ***. She left immediately after paying.

The creditor is seeking to recover a parking charge because payment was not made within the time specified. You submit that in the circumstances of this case this condition is unenforceable by virtue of the driver having a 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act and therefore being entitled to reasonable adjustments which include being allowed to pay the tariff beyond the stipulated period.

I'm certain you could work with the above. However, they make the point in their reply that no evidence of your wife's condition was submitted. Do not make the same mistake with IAS. Anyone can concoct a story, so pl give them what they would need to support your account. 

+ as a secondary matter whether the NTK complies..

Ok team, new response - this was what I sent them

The driver was my wife, therefore I have a detailed account of what occured. My wife drove to Darlington from our home address in Cambois (NE241SE) with our very young baby (DOB 17.11.2023). Due to traffic the drive took longer than expected, around 90 minutes. When she arrived our son had been screaming for a good half an hour. She pulled into a parking spot and immediately saw to him assuming she could pay the ticket after she'd dealt with the urgent matter of feeding our son. She breast fed him, adjusted her clothes, got him safely out the car and then bought a ticket, this took roughly 21 minutes, as is shown by the time she entered and the time she bought a ticket. She left immediately after paying properly for three hours parking to go about her business. The creditor is seeking to recover a parking charge because payment was not made within the time specified. I submit that in the circumstances this is unenforcable because the driver had a 'protected characteristic' under the equality act and is therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments which include being allowed to pay the tarriff beyond the stipulated period.

My wife was attending a show for babies at theatre hullabaloo nearby, so evidence can be provided in the form of eyewitnesses and ticket bookings if necessary, although I assume the parking cameras at the site would show my wife carrying our baby. I am prepared to take this all the way to court, but I would rather not waste everybody's time and cancel this erroneous matter now.


This is what Excell replied -

The operator made their response on 23/02/2024 14:36:26.

1. If the appellant wishes to transfer liability for the charge to another person they may do so by providing the full name and serviceable address for that person, who will be sent a notice. However if that person denies liability, liability will revert to the appellant as registered keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

2. Any CCTV cameras located on the site are property of the landowner or respective business. If the appellant wishes to view any CCTV footage they may hold, the appellant would have to approach and request this from them themselves. Neither we nor the adjudicator have any investigatory power on the motorist's behalf.

What now - should I A) refer it to arbitration and let the IAS give a verdict or B) dob my wife in and let her fight it on the grounds of the breast feeding C) say something else in response to Excell?

- Thanks for advice as ever, I'm just a bit hazy on wether I'll still be able to use the breast feeding as reason for late parking payment if I'm the one up in court.