Free Traffic Legal Advice

No... The "family" didn't "park". The "driver" parked. The "Keeper" 'got' a PCN. The Keeper should not identify the driver. The Keeper should only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

In my view there are definitely potential Equality Act issues with how the Galleria and Horizon are running this new system. Both the shopping centre and Horizon are “service providers” to the public, which means they have legal duties under the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against disabled people and to make reasonable adjustments for them. The Blue Badge scheme itself doesn’t bind private land, but the Equality Act does.

The key problem is this new rule that all Blue Badge holders must remove the badge, take it to a pay machine at the end of the stay, and scan it to get three hours free. That is a “provision, criterion or practice” that only applies to disabled visitors. Non-disabled customers just pay at the machine in the usual way. Disabled customers now have to remember an extra step, physically reach the machine, handle and scan the badge correctly, and understand a process which is not standard or widely known. For people with mobility issues, fatigue, pain, cognitive or visual impairments, that is exactly the sort of extra barrier the Equality Act is meant to prevent. The law says they should anticipate those difficulties and take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage – not introduce a system that makes things more complicated for Blue Badge users.

On top of that, it sounds like this scanning requirement and the “contractors only” status of that car park were not clearly communicated. If you had a badge on display, parked as a genuine disabled shopper, and reasonably believed you were doing the right thing, then hit with a PCN afterwards, that points to poor signage and communication. That is relevant both to the parking contract issue (were the terms clearly brought to the driver’s attention?) and to the Equality Act angle: if their signs and processes are confusing or inaccessible, disabled people are more likely to be caught out and penalised.

There is also a possible argument of “discrimination arising from disability”. If the person with the Blue Badge meets the Equality Act definition of disabled, then issuing and pursuing a PCN in these circumstances can amount to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of that disability – for example difficulty engaging with a new, more complex system or needing to park in the most accessible area. The operator would have to justify that as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Saying “we want to enforce our parking rules” may not be enough to justify hammering a genuine disabled shopper with a charge simply because they did not know they had to scan their badge at a machine, especially when a badge was visibly displayed.

The “contractors only” point has an extra twist. If that car park is particularly convenient or close to entrances, it is likely to be more attractive to disabled visitors. If the signage is not absolutely clear and obvious that it is for contractors only, disabled people may be more likely to be misled into using it and then being penalised. That starts to look like a rule which, in practice, puts disabled users at particular disadvantage unless they have taken proper steps to mitigate that.

So, overall, my advice is that you can legitimately challenge this situation on Equality Act grounds as well as on the usual parking-law points. The core message is that the new system and its implementation appear to create extra barriers and penalties for disabled visitors, rather than providing reasonable adjustments to make their visit easier.

In your case the PCN is for “Failure to pay for full duration of stay”, based purely on ANPR saying the vehicle was on site for 2 hours 15 minutes. Importantly, there is no evidence – and no wording on the notice – describing the actual period of parking, just the time between the ANPR cameras logging entry and exit.

That matters for a few reasons:

1. ANPR only records when a vehicle passes a camera, not when it is actually parked. The time “on site” can include finding a space, unloading, reading the signs, and queuing to leave. For a disabled person, all of that inevitably takes longer. So even before we get into the Equality Act, the operator hasn’t shown a clear period of parking, just a drive-in/drive-out timestamp.

2. The site’s own policy is that Blue Badge holders get three hours free if they “scan” the badge. Your ANPR time of 2:15 is well within that three-hour concession. In other words, if the system had been designed in a way that properly accommodates disabled visitors, the correct “full duration of stay” for you should have been free. The problem here is not that you underpaid; it’s that the operator has introduced a convoluted scanning process and is then treating disabled customers as if they were non-payers when they don’t navigate it perfectly.

3. If Horizon are trying to rely on keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, they are supposed to specify a “period of parking”, not just give a single entry and exit time from an ANPR system. Here they’ve simply equated an ANPR “time on site” of 2:15 with a period of parking and then labelled it a “failure to pay for full duration of stay”. That’s a stretch, and in my view it’s not good enough to fix liability on the keeper.

So, putting it together:

• As a disabled Blue Badge user, you were entitled to a three-hour concession.
• You were recorded on site for 2 hours 15 minutes only.
• The operator hasn’t shown any distinct period of parking, just ANPR timestamps.
• They are trying to characterise this as a “failure to pay for full duration of stay” when (a) the stay was within the advertised concession and (b) the real issue is their new, poorly communicated scanning requirement, which arguably disadvantages disabled visitors and raises Equality Act concerns.

My advice is that you challenge the PCN on both fronts: (1) the Equality Act angle (failure to make reasonable adjustments, possible discrimination arising from disability), and (2) the parking-law angle (ANPR time on site vs actual period of parking; misdescription of the alleged breach; and, if they’re claiming PoFA, failure to properly specify a period of parking).

Use the following as your initial appeal to Horizon:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle PJ60 VYC and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice HP4428925.

The vehicle was at The Galleria, Hatfield on 11 November 2025 so that a disabled family member, who holds a valid Blue Badge, could shop. The Blue Badge was clearly displayed in the windscreen for the duration of the visit. Your ANPR images show only that the vehicle was on site between 12:35:30 and 14:50:26, a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes.

Following receipt of this notice I contacted the Galleria management. They have confirmed in writing that Blue Badge holders are entitled to three hours’ free parking provided the badge is scanned at the pay machine, and that this is a new system introduced when Horizon installed new machines and signage. In other words, on your own landowner’s stated policy a disabled Blue Badge holder is allowed three hours’ stay without payment. The alleged “breach” of “Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay” is therefore misconceived: the total time on site was well within the three hour concession for disabled visitors.

Your system appears to penalise disabled visitors simply because they were unaware of, or unable to comply with, a recently introduced and non-standard requirement to remove a Blue Badge from the vehicle and scan it at a machine after the visit. That requirement places disabled people at a particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled visitors, who simply pay in the usual way, and it does not amount to a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. The landowner and Horizon are service providers and must anticipate the needs of disabled visitors. Issuing and pursuing a parking charge against a genuine disabled shopper, whose vehicle stayed less than three hours and displayed a valid Blue Badge, is in my view a clear failure to make reasonable adjustments and may amount to discrimination arising from disability.

In addition, your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) and you cannot transfer any liability to me as keeper. In particular:

1. You have not described any “period of parking” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). You have merely stated ANPR entry and exit times, which include time spent driving around, finding a space, loading and exiting. Your allegation is based on “duration of stay”, not on a proven period when the vehicle was parked.
2. The wording you rely on for keeper liability under paragraph 9(2)(f) does not reproduce the mandatory statutory invitation to the keeper in the form required by PoFA. Instead you assert that, after 28 days, you “have the right to recover any unpaid part of the notice” from the keeper, which mis-states the law and is expressly conditional on full compliance with all the other requirements of Schedule 4. As your notice is not fully compliant, no such right arises.

Because the notice is not PoFA-compliant, there is no keeper liability in law. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I will not be doing so. Any liability (which is denied) could only ever rest with the driver, who you must pursue separately if you believe you have a cause of action.

For the reasons above, this Parking Charge must be cancelled. Please confirm in writing that you have done so and that my details have been removed from your records, other than what you are required to retain for audit purposes. If you refuse, please treat this as a formal complaint as well as an appeal and provide me with a POPLA verification code together with a copy of the Equality Act impact assessment and any policy documents relied upon when introducing the Blue Badge scanning requirement.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper of PJ60 VYC

Also, send the following to the Galleria management:

Dear [Centre Manager’s name],

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle PJ60 VYC regarding a Parking Charge Notice issued by your agent, Horizon Parking Ltd, at The Galleria, Hatfield:

PCN number: HP4428925
Date of incident: 11 November 2025
Allegation: “Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay”

On that date the vehicle was at The Galleria so that a disabled family member, who holds a valid Blue Badge, could shop. The Blue Badge was clearly displayed in the windscreen for the entire visit. Horizon’s ANPR images show only that the vehicle was on site between 12:35:30 and 14:50:26 – a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes.

After receiving the PCN I contacted the Galleria and was told in writing:

“As our Car park is now being managed by Horizon Parking who have installed new machines and Signage across the site.
All blue badge holders will be required to scan their blue badges at the pay machines at the end of each stay to ensure the discount is applied of 3hrs free parking. You can leave the clock on display and keep your badge with you, then once you have finished shopping scan the badge at the machine.”

In other words, under your own stated policy a disabled Blue Badge holder is entitled to three hours’ free parking. The total time on site of 2 hours 15 minutes was comfortably within that concession. There was no “failure to pay for full duration of stay”. The only issue appears to be that a disabled visitor did not follow a newly introduced and non-standard requirement to remove a Blue Badge from the vehicle and scan it at a machine.

As the occupier/centre operator you are a “service provider” under the Equality Act 2010 and remain responsible for the actions of your agent, Horizon. The “scan your badge at the machine” rule is a provision, criterion or practice which applies only to disabled visitors and places them at a particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled visitors, who simply pay in the usual way. It requires disabled people to remember an extra step, physically reach and use a machine, and correctly operate an unfamiliar system. For those with mobility, fatigue, sensory or cognitive impairments, that is precisely the sort of barrier the Equality Act is intended to prevent.

I am therefore very concerned that:

1. The way this new system has been implemented may amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled visitors, and
2. The decision to pursue a Parking Charge against a genuine disabled shopper, where the stay was within the three-hour concession, may amount to discrimination arising from disability.

In light of the above, I now ask that The Galleria, as principal, immediately instruct Horizon Parking Ltd to cancel PCN HP4428925 and confirm this to me in writing.

I would also invite you to review, as a matter of urgency, whether your current arrangements for Blue Badge users at The Galleria comply with your duties under the Equality Act 2010, and what steps you will take to ensure that disabled visitors are not placed at a disadvantage in future. It would be helpful if you could outline any changes you propose to make to the system, signage or procedures for Blue Badge holders.

If this matter is not resolved and the charge is not cancelled, I will have to consider escalating it further, including raising formal concerns about Equality Act compliance with your head office and any other appropriate bodies. For the time being I hope that will not be necessary and that you will agree that penalising a disabled customer in these circumstances is neither fair nor consistent with your legal obligations.

I look forward to your prompt written confirmation that you have instructed Horizon to cancel this charge.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]
Registered keeper of PJ60 VYC
[Address]
[Email]