Free Traffic Legal Advice

Does your friend's "limited mobility" come under the Equality Act 2010 as a "protected characteristic"? Do they have Blue Badge?

Is the location St James Church, Doncaster? If so, can your friend go back to the church and ask someone in charge there to get Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)? That would be their Plan A.

There are several technical flaws with the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that can be used in any appeal or even in court. However, that is a long way off. The Keeper has until 26th March to appeal, so no rush and PE will reject any appeal anyway.

Just found that the car park is St James Church, Doncaster. 

However, my friend lives too far away from Doncaster to make a trip to the Church to request cancellation practical. 

The driver does not hold a Blue Badge. 

The starting point for any appeal here will be the duration of the stay and the circumstances of the driver. From a very loose estimate there are 500+ words on that T&Cs sign.

Assuming a reading speed of 230wpm that's at least 2 minutes just to properly consider the terms of the contract. Add to that the time taken to drive in and park up in a space in what appears to be a 300 space car park, then the time taken to walk to the payment machine and T&Cs sign with limited mobility, then the time taken to walk back again having decided against parking there, and finally the time taken to drive back out.

Put all that together and a 'stay' of 9 minutes seems entirely reasonable, warranting a departure from the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.

I note you mention the driver does not have a blue badge, but do they have any sort of diagnosis to refer to? As b789 has noted, if the driver was disabled, then once it is brought to ParkingEye's attention, an argument can be made that they should make a reasonable adjustment for this and cancel the charge.

The starting point for any appeal here will be the duration of the stay and the circumstances of the driver. From a very loose estimate there are 500+ words on that T&Cs sign.

Assuming a reading speed of 230wpm that's at least 2 minutes just to properly consider the terms of the contract. Add to that the time taken to drive in and park up in a space in what appears to be a 300 space car park, then the time taken to walk to the payment machine and T&Cs sign with limited mobility, then the time taken to walk back again having decided against parking there, and finally the time taken to drive back out.

Put all that together and a 'stay' of 9 minutes seems entirely reasonable, warranting a departure from the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.

I note you mention the driver does not have a blue badge, but do they have any sort of diagnosis to refer to? As b789 has noted, if the driver was disabled, then once it is brought to ParkingEye's attention, an argument can be made that they should make a reasonable adjustment for this and cancel the charge.

Thanks DWMB2.  The car park was busy and almost full when they arrived.  They ended up trying two separate spaces which were too tight to for the driver to be able to get out of the car, before finding a third which was big enough to do so.  They then went to the ticket machine to find that there was no option for parking over 24 hours and then went to the sign to see if there was any mention of parking for longer periods. 

A few years ago that particular car park allowed long-term (i.e. over 24 hours) parking and the driver went there because in the past that is where they had parked when leaving the car for a few days.  Anecdotally, after they left this car park they immediately went to another nearby car park, also run by ParkingEye, and parked successfully for the duration of their 2 day visit to London.  Paying for that stay was not straightforward, but they have the receipts if for any reason they receive another PCN.

The driver has one replacement knee, walks with a stick and is on a waiting list for the other knee to be replaced.  All of this can be evidenced.

I'm not sure the new rule is of any relevance... That rule relates to cases where payment is made, but it takes the motorist longer than the time the operator allows.

Here the driver chose not to accept the contract on offer and left, and the argument is that due to a range of factors (discussed above), they needed longer than 5 minutes for this.

So will it be possible to appeal without identifying the driver? 

It will only be the driver that is able to evidence the disability and so evidencing that will, by necessity, result in identification of the driver, unless evidencing the disability is not required for making the appeal.

Agreed - the downside of throwing away some potential PoFA arguments is outweighed by the merits of the driver's arguments re. their mobility, in my view.