Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Thank you in advance. I parked with good intention and paid online for a bay in an ex-local authority block. I just received the following notice to keeper and wasn't sure what to do because I think I have parked in the same bay a couple of times since and fearing I will get a notice each time. I went back to take photos and its only now I realised only a couple of bays were for visitors, I didn't notice it at the time. I spoke to one of the owners of the private bays and he said people do it all the time and get fines. I feel it is very deceiving, even if my photos don't suggest so. DO I have an appeal?

Please do not bump threads, this is a busy forum providing free advice and run entirely by volunteers, you will not always get immediate replies.

Can you show us a close up photo of the signage with the terms and conditions legible?

In the past the best thing was to ignore

In England and Wales, ignoring hasn't been particularly advisable for many years now.

I think I posted these photos too late so I am going to muddle through an appeal before midnight otherwise it rises to £100.

I am guessing I can always contest it again if (when) they reject my appeal

Did you take any photos of the bays and the markings?

No initial appeal was ever going to be successful. A secondary appeal to the IAS is not going to succeed either.

You are obviously worried about losing out on the "mugs discount". However, if you really feel aggrieved by this and want to fight it, you must disregard the discount.

The only way this is likely to be concluded without you paying the scammers is by waiting to see if they decide to take this all the way to the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track in the county court.

It is up to you to decide whether you want to fight this or give in to the cowboys.

You have a less than 5% chance of winning an IAS appeal. It's up to you if you want to try. Your points should be on signage/markings.

The markings on the ground are worn and not very clear and the fact that you reversed into the bay means that it was difficult to notice you were not in a visitor bay. You paid for the parking session and there was no material loss to the operator.

Here are some points you could use. Remember that mitigation is not considered. Only points of law and the Code of Practice (CoP).

1. Ambiguity in Visitor Parking Terms
The sign indicates, “Parking bays labelled with a ‘V’ or ‘Visitor’ are solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an address of a Tait Court resident.” This language implies that these specific bays are exclusively for visitors, but it does not clearly prohibit visitors from using other unmarked or general bays.

Under the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) section 3.1.3(i), signage must be unambiguous and leave no room for alternative interpretations. This ambiguity creates uncertainty, as a visitor might reasonably believe they can park in any unlabelled bay, especially since the sign does not explicitly state that visitors are restricted only to the “V” bays.

2. Lack of Clear Restriction for Non-Visitor Bays
The sign states, “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking exists.” However, it does not clarify that every bay outside of visitor-designated bays requires an e-permit, nor does it explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.

This creates further ambiguity, as there is no clear indication that visitors are not permitted to park in other bays. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unclear or ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer (in this case, the visitor), meaning that visitors should not be penalised based on unclear terms.

3. Insufficient Clarity on Permit Requirements
While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit, it does not specify that this applies strictly to all non-visitor bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions must be clearly visible and understandable to drivers.

Given this lack of clarity, a visitor might reasonably conclude that paying for a session (as instructed by the sign) suffices for compliance. The signage does not make it clear that even with paid parking, an e-permit is mandatory in certain areas, which fails the transparency test.

The SCoP requires operators to display signage that adequately informs the driver of all terms and conditions. The lack of a clear, unequivocal statement about visitor restrictions in non-visitor bays or a mandatory e-permit in non-visitor bays means the signage does not meet the necessary standard of clarity.

4. Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Single Code of Practice Compliance
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be fair and transparent. The ambiguous e-permit requirement fails this standard, as it does not clearly indicate whether visitors are required to obtain an e-permit in addition to paying for parking.

In the absence of a clear statement, the terms should be interpreted in the consumer’s favour. Therefore, the visitor’s reasonable interpretation that payment alone was sufficient should be upheld, making the parking charge notice unenforceable.

In your appeal, conclude that:

I appealed via the IAS and received the operators response. I now have a few days to go back. Is that now necessary and, if so, to say what?
I have already stated my claim (copied below)..

You completed the appeal on 15/11/2024 10:44:37.

The signage and parking markings are ambiguous. One of the residents informed me many people park there and pay as I did. I reversed in an on the day there was a big puddle covering the visitor sign on the floor which is quite worn. I have taken a picture and included on a drier day for you to see how the puddle forms. I reversed into the bay which makes it even harder to notice if its a visitor bay or not. The way the signage is makes it look like all of the bays are pay and display.

The fact I actually paid means there is no material loss to the operator.
The sign states "Parking bays labelled "v" or "visitor" are solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an address of a Tait Court resident" - This language implies that these specific bars are exclusively for visitors but it does not clearly prohibit visitors from using the unmarked or general bays.

The sign states "Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking exists" - However it does not clarify that every bay outside of visitor-designated bays require an e-permit, nor does it explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.

While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit it does not specify that this applies strictly to all non visitor bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions should be clear and visible and understandable to all drivers.

Given this lack of clarity a visitor may reasonably conclude that paying for a session as instructed by a sign suffices for compliance. An e-permit being mandatory in certain areas is not clear by the signage which fails the transparency test.

Under the consumer rights of act of 2015, contractual terms must be fair and transparent.
In absence of this clear statement should be interpreted in the consumers favour. Therefore by dint of payment alone should be sufficient making the parking notice unenforceable.

I request the IAS cancels the PCN on the grounds the signage fails to clearly inform visitors of the parking restrictions and creates unenforceable ambiguity.

Response was as follows.....

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 20/11/2024 10:39:03.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 23/10/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 17/10/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located throughout the site. All signage, as well as the overall site, has been independently audited and approved by our Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community (IPC). The signage states “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking exists”, going on to state that “Breach of any contractual terms and conditions will result in the driver being liable for a Parking Charge of £100”. And “By entering or remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the contractual terms”.

Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, the signage makes clear that all vehicles within this bay must be registered to a valid e-permit. The appellant has stated and provided evidence of the visitor parking payment, however, as per the Pay4Bay sign, it clearly states ‘this bay' which indicates that this is only for the bay that the sign is within, not the bay the vehicle was parked within. Therefore, the appellant didn't have a valid permit for the bay they were parked in, in accordance with the signage on site. While we note the appellant's comments, it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that they are parked in accordance with the advertised Terms and Conditions. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this opportunity however, by entering or remaining on this private land without reading the Terms and Conditions, then they are deemed to have accepted them immediately.

The vehicle was observed from 09:45:08, with the Parking Charge being issued at 11:11:00. This constitutes a parking period of 1 hour, 25 minutes and 52 seconds; during which time the vehicle was observed remaining on-site whilst not registered to a valid e-permit. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided, the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they were required to immediately remove the vehicle from site.

As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge has been issued correctly.

Thank you HC Anderson. Excuse my ignorance, so you think I should go back to them now citing that first paragraph?