Free Traffic Legal Advice

Are you the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle?

The Notice to Driver (NtD) issued is not PoFA 2012 compliant. They cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to PCM) driver to the known Keeper.

However, as you are dealing with an IPC member, any appeal, no matter what, is going to be rejected and the secondary IAS appeal has a less than 4% chance of success and so is not really worth the effort.

The only way this is gong to be successfully resolved is after they issue a claim. There is a less than 1% chance that any claim issued will ever get as far as a hearing with the most likely outcome being a discontinuation or it being struck out at allocation stage.

However, they will go through the intimidator process of sending out loads of powerless debt recovery letter which should be ignored. Their only purpose is to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Eventually, they will issue a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely through one of a few possible bulk litigation firms. When you receive one of those, come back and show it to us and we will advise on how to respond and what to do when you eventually receive an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC.

As for the owner of the space, are you related to the 92 year old lady? Is there anyone who can assist her and get the space registered for parking? Ideally, if you could have a look at her lease and tell us what it says about parking it is quite possible that her rights are being breached. What the lease doesn't say about parking is equally important.

In the vast majority of residential parking issues with rogue, unregulated private parking companies is that they do not actually have any right to issue PCNs as the residents lease has supremacy of contract and the management company is in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

You need to check your MiLs lease/deeds to see what they say about parking. What they don't say bout poking is equally important. This is important, especially if this should ever progress to a claim.

For now, you simply appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). It must all be done in the Keepers name but you can do it for him. The appeal will be rejected but it them is part of a paper trail:

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The Notice to Driver (NtD) was not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Driver (NtD) did not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PCM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your subsequent NtK can only hold the driver liable. PCM have no hope should you be so foolish as to try and litigate the matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Thinking about this a bit more, there are several approaches to this I would consider.

You (or any family member with your MILs consent) can make direct representations to the managing agent or residents' management company, highlighting:


This can be done through a written complaint, ideally referencing that they, as principal or landowner’s agent, remain jointly responsible for the actions of their parking contractor (PCM), especially if any breach of the Equality Act arises. You should ask them to:


As for any appeal, hold off on that until as late as possible in order to get a response from the management company. Your son as the Keeper, has until 11th April to submit an appeal.

For now send something along these lines to the management company:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing on behalf of my mother-in-law, a 92-year-old disabled resident at [property address], in relation to a parking charge issued to a family member who was visiting to assist her.

At the time, one of her two allocated parking bays was occupied by another vehicle, and the other — while technically vacant — is too narrow to allow safe access with a wheelchair. There is no designated disabled bay provided anywhere on site. The only practical and accessible option was to park in the Visitor Bay within the gated residential area. A valid Blue Badge was clearly displayed in the vehicle’s windscreen.

My mother-in-law does not own a smartphone or computer and has never registered with the app-based system your parking contractor (PCM) requires for authorising visitor parking. Visitors have parked in that bay without issue for several years, and to our knowledge this is the first time enforcement action has ever taken place.

The PCM operative who issued the charge would have seen the clearly displayed Blue Badge and was therefore fully aware that the vehicle was present for the benefit of a disabled resident. Issuing a PCN in such circumstances demonstrates a complete lack of discretion and a failure to consider the Equality Act implications of their actions.

I am raising this matter formally because:

 

• Your resident is both elderly and disabled, with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
 • A valid Blue Badge was displayed, making the vehicle’s purpose obvious.
 • The current parking system makes no reasonable adjustments for residents like her.
 • An app-only process without alternatives amounts to indirect discrimination and places disabled residents at a substantial disadvantage.
 • The pursuit of a penalty against a relative assisting her is wholly unjustified and causes distress.
 • There is an established custom and practice of using the Visitor Bay in such circumstances, with no previous enforcement.

You, as the managing agent or landowner’s representative, are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agent, PCM. This includes any breach of the Equality Act 2010. The failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled residents or to consider their practical access needs amounts to unlawful discrimination.

I therefore require your written confirmation that:

 

• You have instructed PCM to cancel this parking charge, and
 • You will urgently review the enforcement arrangements in place to prevent further breaches of duty towards vulnerable residents.

Should you fail to take appropriate action, we will escalate this matter as a formal complaint and, if necessary, refer it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) or other relevant authorities.

I draw your attention to your duties under the Equality Act 2010, specifically:

 

• Section 19 – Indirect discrimination, which occurs where a provision, criterion or practice (such as an app-only registration system) puts disabled persons at a particular disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons;
 • Section 20 – The duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid such disadvantage; and
 • Schedule 25, paragraph 2( – Which confirms that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory duty and applies to property managers, including managing agents.

In Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court confirmed that service providers must take positive steps to accommodate disabled individuals and that failing to do so can amount to unlawful discrimination. That principle applies equally to managing agents overseeing parking enforcement schemes.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,