Free Traffic Legal Advice

Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for the record, not for their approval.
[/quote]

Morning B789 - Unfortunately, due to work commitments I have only just now noticed the appeal response - which only gives me today to reply further. Any further advice will be greatly appreciated -

See their response below - they are it seems assuming I was the driver, and neglecting to accept the basic principal that their terminal offered no such message of failed payment, or that the merchant services have failed to accept the authorised payment presented to them.
They have also stated their records show the payment to have been 'aborted' and then infer that this is the same as failed - two completely different things, at least as far as I'm aware and according to the english dictionary. Link to their 'proof' on this matter: https://ibb.co/0yL8L2d2


The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 18/11/2025 21:12:10.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/10/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 30/10/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
As detailed on the clear and prominent signage (the contract), drivers agree to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if 'payment for the duration of your vehicle's stay has not been made in full'.

The appellants' vehicle occupied the car park for 58 minutes on 22/10/2025. The attached search of our payment records details that no payment was made; therefore, the Parking Charge was issued correctly.

In response to the appellants' pertinent comments:

* The appellants' multiple references to POFA are of no relevance to this matter, as we are not utilising the Act, nor have we suggested that we are. The use of POFA is not mandatory, as per para 4(6) of the Act:

"Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery)."

* The appellant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The image of the vehicle entering the car park shows a male driver and a female passenger. The appellant has confirmed that they were present; indeed, they have submitted a screenshot of an attempted payment from their own mobile phone. As such, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is 'more probable than not' (the standard of proof in these matters) that the appellant was indeed the driver.

* It is nonsensical to suggest that we do not have authority from the landowner. No landowner would tolerate the installation of signage and 4 ANPR cameras. Not to mention the fact that we use their power supply. That said, the Adjudicator has sight of our contract with the landowner, which meets the requirements of the applicable Code of Practice, which is not the "PPSCoP" as this is not a new site.

* The time and date of the ANPR is updated in real time via the Network Time Protocol, much like a mobile phone; therefore, it is always 100% accurate. No 'Grace Period' applies, as no payment was made for parking.

* The screenshot of a payment submitted by the appellant is a 'Pending Payment', as the attached 'RK66LDN-Aborted Payment' confirms that this transaction was aborted (i.e. failed), as confirmed by the appellant's own 'PHC Bank Alert' that they have uploaded. The appellant was informed that their transaction had failed via the terminal's LCD screen, with the appellant conceding in their initial appeal to us that the terminal did not issue a receipt.

In light of the above and attached, we trust that this appeal will be dismissed as it has no merit.

Trust me, if I lived near Padstow, I'd go and get a PCN from them at the same location and let them take me to court and then slap them with a Summary Judgment application and get my costs and £750 because I'd do it before allocation to track.
[/quote]

Thank you again b789 - very much appreciated. Further details added word for word. Though, again, they didn't make it easy as they have disabled copy + paste, so requires typing out, again with a 1000 word limit. I'll endeavour to keep a closer eye on my inbox this time!


Thanks again

No one really cares what the IAS are going to think or decide.. . .

Evening - I've finally received an update from the IAS - and - as you suspected - the appeal outcome is Dismissed and common sense has not prevailed. See below for their full response.

I'd love some guidance on where I go from here - presumably the original oporator will waste no time at all and be in touch swiftly, no doubt trying to obtain hundreds of pounds - or will that happen after the 28 day period? I can only assume I now ignore that and wait for them to take me to some sort of court?

Your help is always very much appreciated. . .




Dear Richard,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 583280
Vehicle Registration: R###
Date Issued: 30/10/2025

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to assume that as the registered keeper he was also the driver.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must make a valid payment for the full duration of their stay. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant entered the site at 10:33 and exited at 11:32; a total stay of 59 minutes. In the data provided I can see that no payment was made for the Appellant's VRN. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they make a valid payment for their parking session and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Whilst I appreciate that an attempt at payment may have been made by the driver, evidence of a pending payment e.g. on mobile banking, is not sufficient. The Appellant has not provided any other evidence that he/the driver was entitled to believe he had purchased a valid parking session. The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the site is not relevant land within the meaning of Schedule 4 as well as suggesting that the Operator has not complied with the other requirements therein such as the timescale to send the NTK. I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with including the site being within the definition of relevant land, in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not. Instead, the Operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time. On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore 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