I don't have the original internal appeal but it was basically the same as my appeal to the IAS, as follows (have highlighted my main points).
"I am appealing on the grounds of mitigating circumstances.
During the time of the alleged contravention took place, I had suffered a headache and I was not in a fit state to safely move the vehicle xxxxxxx from the location where it was parked which resulted in the vehicle remaining in the car park longer than the allowed time. The duration my car remained parked meant that I exceeded the grace period by 12 minutes and 50 seconds.
Please find attached evidence of, lengevity and severity of my medical condition and the medication I am prescribed that are used to try to abort headache attacks when they occur. I have suffered from this condition since the age of 15, I am now 35. You will see from my medical records and email chain with my Neurologist from 2020 that my headaches can last 7 hours and have resulted in me attending A&E.
The parking operator has denied my appeal despite them being bound under legal duty to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 by not placing disbled people at a disadvantage. A reasonable adjustment provisioned under this act would be for them to extend the grace period to cover the period of time I remained parked due to the health complication that occured.
The parking operator argues that the PCN has been issued correctly as a reason for rejecting my appeal but I am not disputing that. They are now aware of my medical condition and the circumstances which prevented me from exiting the car park before the maximum time elapsed. Section 29 of the Eqaulity act 2010 makes it unlawful for the parking provider to discriminate against people with protected characteristics, one of them being disabled people such as myself.
If an accident occured due to me not being in a fit state to drive my vehicle from the parking site that they manage would they take liability for the incident? I think not. It is my responsibility to only drive my vehicle when I am fit and well. I cannot control when a headache occurs or if my medication will successfully abort an attack.
In this car park there is no provision to pay for any amount of time so paying to extend my stay in the car park was not an option. Despite what the parking operator has mentioned in their letter of refusal to my appeal, their signage does not state that their contact number can be used to inform them that a motorist has overstayed to prevent the issue of a PCN. Their signage only states that their 24 hour contact number is to be used for qeuries regarding making payment or for reporting malfunctioning equipment. Assuming a motorist will contact them prior to the issuance of a PCN for an overstay is not a valid reason for rejecting an appeal, this is exactly what an appeal process is for."
Ocean Parking responded:
"Mr X who is appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) xxxxxxxxxx has
been named as the registered keeper of the vehicle by the DVLA and has declared
themselves the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
2. The Parking Charge Notice was issued at Frome Retail Park. A Maximum Stay Period
applies on site, and the car park is monitored by ANPR cameras for enforcement
purposes of vehicles staying longer than the permitted parking period. The site is
also patrolled by operatives to ensure the other terms and conditions of the
Contractual Warning Signs are adhered to.
3. The Postal Parking Charge Notice was issued for the contravention ‘Exceeded
Maximum Stay Period’ on the x December 2025, as the driver of vehicle XXXXXX
stayed on site for a duration of 2 hours 22 minutes and 50 seconds, exceeding the 2
Hours Maximum Stay Period.
4. There are Contractual Warning Signs situated throughout Frome Retail Park, which
state the Maximum Stay Period for parking on site, and the other Terms and
Conditions that apply. A copy of the Contractual Warning Signage in place is attached
to the case.
5. The ANPR Camera is checked daily, and all data entries received are checked
thoroughly before sending a Postal PCN to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The
ANPR camera has captured the quoted times for this vehicle entering and exiting
Frome Retail Park on the date of the contravention, as can be seen on the time and
date stamped images within this document.
6. The contractual warning signs in place clearly state ’2 Hours Maximum Stay’, and
this vehicle was parked in contravention of this term of the contractual warning
signs. Copies of the signage, a signage plan, and site images of the signage in place at
this location, are present within our attachments.
7. The ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Registration) records approximately 1300
entries / exits a day for this location and calculates the stay duration automatically.
The system is checked for anomalies before a Postal PCN is issued, and again on
receipt of an Appeal. The times on the images provided, which are also shown on the
Postal PCN, are supported by the recordings of the appellant’s vehicle on the date in
question.
8. There is Contractual Warning Signage throughout the site stating the parking Terms
and Conditions in place, therefore when the appellant parked on-site, they accepted
them, if they did not agree with the Terms and Conditions, they did not have to park
there and could have left the site. Ocean Parking have a contract with the
Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in place, and the appellant
parked in Contravention of those Terms. Our Signage clearly states the parking
requirements and the costs of non-compliance.
9. The appellant has submitted their IAS Appeal on several grounds; however, the
details stated do not negate the appellant from the parking restrictions in place, nor
do they mitigate the fact the contravention occurred.
10. The appellant has provided Ocean Parking, and The IAS with evidence, whoever, the
details stated do not negate the appellant from the parking restrictions in place at
this location, nor do they warrant their vehicle exceeded the maximum stay period
at this location.
11. Ocean Parking will address the appellant’s points below:
12. “I had suffered a headache and I was not in a fit state to safely move the vehicle
XXXXXX from the location where it was parked which resulted in the vehicle
remaining in the car park longer than the allowed time.” – While Ocean Parking
acknowledge the mitigating circumstances detailed by the appellant, this would not
negate them from the parking restrictions in place, nor does it mitigate the fact the
contravention occurred. The appellant failed to contact or inform Ocean Parking of
these mitigating circumstances at any point before their internal appeal, therefore,
the PCN was issued correctly.
13. “The parking operator has denied my appeal despite them being bound under legal
duty to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 by
not placing disbled people at a disadvantage.” – Should the appellant wish to
request a reasonable adjustment they should have contacted us on our 24-hour
phone number and advise us of the adjustment they would have needed while they
were on-site. Any requested adjustment deemed reasonable would have been
accommodated, however, we would not consider retrospective cancellation of a
valid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to be reasonable adjustment.
14. “They are now aware of my medical condition and the circumstances which
prevented me from exiting the car park before the maximum time elapsed.” – As
we were not aware of the appellant's reason for overstaying before they appealed
their PCN, as they did not contact us to inform us of this at the time, the PCN was
issued correctly. As stated above, while we can make reasonable adjustments for
motorists who require them, we do not consider retrospective cancellation a
reasonable adjustment. If the appellant contacted us at the time, or up to 24 hours
after the parking session took place, they could have prevented a PCN from being
issued. Nonetheless, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period enforced onsite and failed to inform Ocean Parking of their mitigating circumstances until after
the PCN had been issued. Ocean Parking therefore refute the appellant's claims that
not cancelling the PCN is an act of discrimination.
15. “Despite what the parking operator has mentioned in their letter of refusal to my
appeal, their signage does not state that their contact number can be used to
inform them that a motorist has overstayed to prevent the issue of a PCN.” – The
contractual warning signage at this location clearly states that our 24-hour contact
telephone number can be used to contact us, therefore, the appellant could have
contacted us to advise us that they had overstayed, and the mitigating circumstances
causing their overstay, and we could have permitted their vehicle on-site to cover
the overstay, to prevent a PCN from being issued. If the appellant has left site with
the knowledge that they have exceeded the maximums stay period, Ocean Parking
are unsure why the appellant would not attempt to contact us to make us aware of
this, as they had parked in clear contravention of the terms and conditions enforced
at this location.
16. Customers of the on-site stores are allowed to use the car park for up to 2 hours,
however, as the appellants vehicle was on-site for 2 hours 22 minutes and 50
seconds, they have exceeded the maximum stay period allowed, therefore
contravening the terms and conditions outlined on the Contractual Warning Signage
in place.
17. There are Contractual Warning Signs in place at Frome Retail Park, copies of which
are enclosed and images showing where the signage is placed have also been
uploaded, therefore if the appellant has failed to read or chosen to ignore the
Contractual Warning Signage in place, we cannot be held responsible for this, nor is
this due to the signage not being visible or clear.
18. Ocean Parking would therefore conclude that this vehicle XXXXXX, entered and
remained on site in contravention of the Contractual Warning Signage, and that PCN
reference XXXXXXXXX was correctly issued.
I then responded:
"Ocean Parking has stated that:
"If you were unable to park in line with the parking restrictions in place, we would assume you would have contacted Ocean Parking to make us aware of this, and to prevent a PCN from being issued."
"Should the appellant wish to request a reasonable adjustment they should have contacted us on our 24-hour phone number and advise us of the adjustment they would have needed while they were on-site. Any requested adjustment deemed reasonable would have been accommodated, however, we would not consider retrospective cancellation of a valid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to be reasonable adjustment.
"we do not consider retrospective cancellation a reasonable adjustment. If the appellant contacted us at the time, or up to 24 hours after the parking session took place, they could have prevented a PCN from being issued"
This position is unsustainable in law for the reasons set out below.
1. Failure to comply with the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory. As confirmed by Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, service providers must take reasonable steps to anticipate the needs of disabled users and remove barriers in advance. They are not entitled to wait for a disabled person to discover unadvertised procedures or rely on undisclosed assumptions.
Ocean Parking’s approach places disabled motorists at a substantial disadvantage by requiring the disabled motorist to somehow know, based solely on Ocean Parking's undisclosed assumptions, that a telephone call could be used to prevent the issuance of a PCN, only while on site or up to 24 hours after. Ocean Parking have therefore failed their anticipatory duty.
2. Undisclosed and unreasonable time limitation
Ocean Parking has relied on an alleged requirement that contact must be made whilst onsite or within 24 hours in order to prevent the issuance of a PCN. This limitation is:
-not displayed on signage;
-not communicated to motorists at the point of contract; and
-not reasonably discoverable by a disabled user.
Imposing an undisclosed procedural requirement and then refusing cancellation because it was not met places a disabled person at further detriment, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.
3. Ocean Parking’s reliance on undisclosed assumptions and unclear signage
Ocean Parking asserts that its contractual warning signage states that the 24-hour contact telephone number “can be used to contact us,” and on that basis claims that I should have contacted them to advise of an overstay and mitigating circumstances in order to prevent the issuance of a PCN.
This position misrepresents what the signage actually communicates to motorists.
The signage at this location expressly limits the purpose of the contact number to:
queries regarding making payment or on-site payment methods; and
reporting malfunctioning equipment.
The signage does not state that the contact number can, should, or must be used for:
issues relating to overstays;
requesting permission to remain on site beyond the maximum stay period; or
preventing the issuance of a PCN.
It is therefore objectively reasonable for a motorist to conclude that the contact number is not intended for such purposes or that it is even possible to prevent the issuance of a PCN. If Ocean Parking intended the telephone number to function as a mechanism for avoiding a PCN, it was incumbent upon them to clearly and prominently communicate this on the signage forming the parking contract. They did not do so, placing disabled motorists at a particular disadvantage.
Furthermore, under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where a term in a consumer contract is ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer must prevail. In this case, the signage makes no reference to any obligation to telephone the operator in the event of an overstay, nor does it state that failing to do so will result in loss of rights or refusal of retrospective consideration. Any ambiguity must therefore be resolved in the consumer’s favour. Ocean Parking cannot rely on undisclosed or unclear information to justify enforcement action or to assert that retrospective cancellation cannot amount to a reasonable adjustment.
4. Retrospective cancellation can be a reasonable adjustment
Ocean Parking’s assertion that retrospective cancellation of a PCN cannot be a reasonable adjustment is incorrect. Where a charge arises as a result of a failure to meet their anticipatory duty and to make reasonable adjustments, cancellation of that charge is an appropriate and proportionate remedy. Refusing to cancel in such circumstances perpetuates the disadvantage rather than removing it.
5. Equality Act implications
By failing to communicate that:
contact during the period of parking or 24 hours after was required for overstays;
such contact could prevent the issuance of a PCN; and
retrospective consideration would not be given,
Ocean Parking has placed disabled motorists at a particular disadvantage. Only allowing reasonable adjustments while on site, where this requirement is neither communicated nor reasonably discoverable, is incompatible with the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010.
6. No obligation to find parking elsewhere
Ocean Parking has also stated that if I did not agree with the Terms and Conditions, I did not have to park there and could have left the site.
This position is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is intended to ensure that disabled persons are not placed at a disadvantage in accessing services. A disabled motorist cannot reasonably be expected to avoid discrimination by simply leaving and attempting to find alternative parking because the disabled motorist is aware they may breach the terms of parking due to their disability.
Suggesting that a disabled person should go elsewhere rather than be provided with reasonable adjustments amounts to a failure to remove barriers and undermines the purpose of the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010.
7. Signage and contract formation
Given Ocean Parking’s failure to clearly communicate these alleged requirements on its contractual warning signage or linked website, no additional legally binding obligations can be said to have been formed. Ocean Parking cannot rely on undisclosed assumptions to:
-defeat an Equality Act claim; or
deny that cancellation of the PCN is a reasonable adjustment
This appeal does not seek discretion or leniency. It seeks removal of a charge that arose because Ocean Parking failed to:
-anticipate the needs of disabled users;
provide adequate information on how reasonable adjustments could be requested, or that such adjustments were only available while on site or within a limited time period thereafter; and
-operate a non-discriminatory system
Conclusion
Ocean Parking’s signage, processes, and subsequent refusal to cancel the PCN collectively amount to a failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010. The Parking Charge Notice should therefore be cancelled.
I reserve all my rights under the Equality Act 2010, including the right to pursue remedies for discrimination should this matter not be resolved."
IAS then rejected my appeal