Author Topic: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket (Read 2258 times)

OlorinTheRed · « **on:** September 07, 2025, 12:15:22 pm »

A relative is the Registered Keeper of a vehicle recently parked in Jamaica Street car park in Liverpool whilst they were attending an event for the weekend.

Confusingly, the periods for which a parking ticket could be purchased on the web-site and the corresponding prices displayed in the car park did not match. The driver wanted to purchase four day's parking for which a price was displayed on the sign in the car park, but no corresponding option was available on the web-site.

The car was parked Friday and they paid for three day's parking. The parking period operates in full days only and was therefore set to expire at midnight on the Sunday. The driver was not leaving until Monday morning and so knew they needed to pay for an additional day's parking to cover the period until mid-morning on the Monday.

The web-site used for purchasing a parking ticket doe not allow her to "forward purchase" parking and could only be used for purchasing parking including the day of purchase. So, the driver stayed up until midnight on Sunday and as the time rolled over into Monday, they logged into the web-site to purchase a ticket.

Unfortunately, the web-site was not loading correctly so they left it a few minutes and tried again. The web-site was still not working so they left it a further 10-15 minutes. At or around 0030, they successfully purchased a ticket for Monday's parking.

When the driver returned to the vehicle at or around 10am on Monday, a Parking Charge Notice for £100 had been issued by ParkPay Services Limited and was attached to the windscreen.

The ticket states that the observation period started at 00:22 and lasted until 00:27 with the ticket being issued at that time. The accompanying photos show that the ticket was affixed to the windscreen at 00:28:43 (according to the timestamp on the photo viewable from ParkPay's web-site).

The RK suffers from General Anxiety Disorder, (clinically diagnosed for which she received NHS treatment), so it would be best if I could look after this for them.

When I try to appeal on their behalf using ParkPay's web-site, it states that such appeals can only be handled in writing rather than via their web-site which seem an unnecessarily onerous restriction.

Does anyone have any advice on the best course of action to appeal the ticket and the likely outcome of such an appeal please?

Thanks in advance for any advice and assistance.

Regards

O

jfollows · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2025, 12:20:24 pm »

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and show us the notices you talk about in particular. Think about not identifying the driver in future also.

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2025, 12:50:07 pm »

I've modified the post as suggested.

The Parking Charge Notice is issued on thermal paper and in a tiny font. It is therefore difficult to photograph, but I have posted a copy of the entirety of the PCN below:

<PARK PAY LOGO> Parkpay Services Ltd, www.paymypcn.net

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE
Notice to driver of breach of terms and conditions
of parking as detailed on the signage at site

PCN Number : <redacted>
Date of Service: 11/08/2025
Period of Parking: 00:27
Observation from: 00:22
Observation to: 00:27
Vehicle Reg No: <redacted>
Vehicle Colour: <redacted>
Vehicle Make: <redacted>
Parking Attendant: Abs
Location: Jamaica Street Carpark, 16-26 Ja
REASON FOR ISSUE: No Valid Payment

The Driver is required to pay a charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days

How to pay your parking charge notice

Online: Pay securely 24 hours a day at www.paymypcn.net

Bank: High Street or online banking
Sort Code: <redacted>
Account Number: <redacted>

This is a parking charge notice issued on private land. Payment of this charge may be pursued by the operator through legal means including the courts, which may result in you incurring additional costs if unpaid.

You can appeal against the charge by writing to the car park operator. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, you can make a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Details are given elsewhere on this notice.

The car park operator has agreed to adhere to an AIA Code of Practice.

For free advice regarding your parking charge including advice on appealing, please visit www.247advice.co.uk

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #3 on:** September 09, 2025, 10:58:37 am »

Update:

In the absence of further advice beyond reading the primer post and not identifying the driver, (which I've attempted to follow and have edited the original post per the suggestions there, but cannot figure out how to change the subject), I've drafted a "Letter of Authorisation" for my relative which I've had them execute and sent a copy of same along with a letter to ParkPay Services appealing the PCN as:

When purchasing a ticket online, their web-site says it is possible to extend the duration of the ticket, but there does not seem to be any mechanism for doing so. Therefore, the only practical way of extending the ticket, (which expires at 23:59 regardless of the time of purchase), is to physically visit the car park at midnight or purchase a ticket online.

The latter option was chosen however their web-site was inoperable at midnight and by the time it was operational and a new ticket had been purchased, they'd already issued the PCN. (There's a difference of 1 minute between the photographic evidence of the PCN being attached to the windscreen and the confirmation e-mail for the new ticket purchase being received.)

If that appeal fails, I'll appeal on more technical grounds as the duration and cost of parking on the signs displayed in the car park does not match those on the web-site, but this will involve driving to Liverpool, (around a 2 hour round trip), to gather the required evidence.

In the name of completeness, this is the car park in question:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jamaica+St,+Liverpool/@53.3977222,-2.9809312,3a,75y,266.1h,94.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-r_J0Qm_j7Ko5xXAQ4riLg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-4.319999999999993%26panoid%3D-r_J0Qm_j7Ko5xXAQ4riLg%26yaw%3D266.1!7i16384!8i8192!4m7!3m6!1s0x487b20d870e2cbf9:0xebddb473e222b21d!8m2!3d53.3961738!4d-2.9808969!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F1tn4xq0w?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Thanks for the assistance thus far.

I'll post back on the result of the appeal.

Regards

O

b789 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 09, 2025, 07:28:36 pm »

Annex F1 (j) of the PPSCoP applies.

Quote

Parking operators should take all reasonable steps to avoid issuing a notice to exempt
classes of vehicle (listed below) by scrutinising images and weighing the balance of doubt.
It is recognised that it may not always be possible for a parking operator’s system to pick
up that these circumstances have arisen, and hence issue a notice that should then be
withdrawn on appeal, providing that acceptable evidence is shared within the time limits
set.
Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided
that they are identified as:

j) a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or
CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle
leaving the car park.
NOTE: This exempt circumstance only relates to the timing of making payment. It does not
exempt a motorist from parking charges which have been issued for other contraventions
such as;
· Partial or under payment for the time parked,
· Where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering their
vehicle,
· Parking in a bay where the vehicle was not permitted to park
(this list is not exhaustive)

So, as long as the payment for the period parked was made before leaving the car park, they should withdraw the PCN. That is the central point of any appeal. Good luck with it as you are dealing with an IPC member and their secondary appeals service, the IAS, is a kangaroo court. However, persist and if it ever foes as far as a county court claim, you have a strong defence.

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2025, 10:35:52 pm »

As stated in the OP and subsequent follow-ups, the PCN was issued by a person and affixed to the windscreen meaning references to exemptions applicable to ANPR are, sadly, not relevant.

Some searching since the PCN was issued seems to suggest that the firm in question manage a number of car parks in Liverpool all of which have a ticketing system that expires at 23:59.

Similarly, it seems that a parking attendant visits the car parks shortly after midnight armed with a list of vehicles whose tickets have just expired.

I suspect that this is produced from the web-site and may explain why it is not possible to purchase a ticket just after midnight.

In the instant case, there is a difference of one minute between the PCN being issued at 00:27 and a ticket being purchased via the web-site at 00:28.

I wish it were the other way around as that would strengthen the appeal, but they could still claim the vehicle was parked for 27 minutes without a ticket and issue a PCN for that.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Regards

O

b789 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 10, 2025, 09:39:44 am »

So, how do you suppose they know what time the vehicle entered the car park? Assuming there is a tariff for different lengths of stay, they must be using ANPR to register the arrival time.

This wouldn't stand up ion court. Payment was made for the full duration the vehicle was parked. There is no loss to the landowner.

Please tell us the name of the parking firm. They are an IPC operator which means that they are unscrupulous and are only interested in your money, irrespective of the facts.

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 10, 2025, 10:24:56 am »

This should have been appealed on Monday 8th September by the Keeper only! By appealing before the 28 day deadline, as the Keeper, they have no reason to request the Keeper details from the DVLA. Often they will respond to the appeal and reject it without issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which means there can be no Keeper liability.

If you have not yet done so, even though it may be a bit late, I suggest you send an appeal to the operator using whatever online portal they use.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtD is 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.

Whilst you may be doing this on behalf of your relative, it must all be done int heir name, if they are the Registered Keeper (RK). Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote

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) does 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. [Name of parking firm] 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope should you try and litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when you receive the rejection.

This would be easily defended if they were ever stupid enough to try and litigate.

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #8 on:** September 10, 2025, 12:54:21 pm »

Quote from: b789 on September 10, 2025, 09:39:44 am

So, how do you suppose they know what time the vehicle entered the car park? Assuming there is a tariff for different lengths of stay, they must be using ANPR to register the arrival time.

All tickets last until 23:59. If one purchases a day's parking at 18:00, it expires at 23:59 the same day, not at 17:59 the following day.

If one purchased three day's parking at 09:35 today, it would expire at 23:59 on the 12th and not at 09:34 on the 13th.

I haven't said this previously, but the whole reason the vehicle was parked there was because the car park in which alternative parking had already been purchased and pre-paid was full and so it was very much a "distress purchase" as the driver was already running late, having arrived at their pre-paid car park in plenty of time, only to find it full. :-(

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #9 on:** September 10, 2025, 01:01:48 pm »

Quote from: b789 on September 10, 2025, 09:39:44 am

This wouldn't stand up ion court. Payment was made for the full duration the vehicle was parked. There is no loss to the landowner.

Please tell us the name of the parking firm. They are an IPC operator which means that they are unscrupulous and are only interested in your money, irrespective of the facts.

With respect, I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "loss".

Whilst the landowner needs to show evidence of the loss they have suffered, in addition to a "loss" being unpaid parking fees it can also cover the administration costs of issuing the PCN which I shall remind you, for the avoidance of doubt, was issued at or around 00:25 by a person visiting the car park, observing the vehicle for at least 5 minutes, taking several photographs and then issuing a PCN.

If the landowner can show costs associated with the parking attendant visiting the car park at this time and issuing the PCN, then my understanding is that they have a demonstrable loss.

The parking firm concerned is ParkPay Services Limited.

Regards

O

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #10 on:** September 10, 2025, 01:21:47 pm »

Quote from: b789 on September 10, 2025, 10:24:56 am

This should have been appealed on Monday 8th September by the Keeper only!

It was appealed (by post) with the appeal set to arrive on Monday, 8th September. It had to be via post as it was neither the driver nor registered keeper appealing and the web portal directs that appeals by authorised third parties cannot be made via the portal and must be made via post.

Do you have a cite to support your claim that "the Keeper only" may appeal? My understanding is that as I have a properly executed "Letter of Authorisation" from the RK then I can deal with this on their behalf and I'd be interested to learn why you think otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, even the company issuing the PCN accept that I can deal with it on that basis.

Quote

By appealing before the 28 day deadline, as the Keeper, they have no reason to request the Keeper details from the DVLA. Often they will respond to the appeal and reject it without issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which means there can be no Keeper liability.

If you have not yet done so, even though it may be a bit late, I suggest you send an appeal to the operator using whatever online portal they use.

As above, and as stated previously in the thread, an appeal was lodged to arrive on the 28th day.

Quote

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

I have been clear in the appeal that I am appealing on behalf of the RK. At no point in the appeal have I linked the RK and driver nor is the driver named.

Quote

The NtD is 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.

Are you able to detail with which requirements of PoFA the NtD does not comply? If this is a FAQ, please feel free to point me to a relevant resource. TIA

Please be aware that my previous post containing the text of the NtD had been truncated and I hadn't noticed. I've just made another post containing the missing text which may necessitate revisiting your thoughts on this. My sincerest apologies for this. :-(

Quote

Whilst you may be doing this on behalf of your relative, it must all be done int heir name, if they are the Registered Keeper (RK).

I do not believe this to be the case, nor do the company issuing the PCN, but I would be happy for you to prove me (and them!) wrong. :-)

Quote

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

Quote
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) does 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. [Name of parking firm] 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope should you try and litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I assume you neglected to change the reference to Horizon to [Name of parking firm]?

I have already lodged the appeal, prior to the above advice for which I am grateful and thank you.

Quote
Come back when you receive the rejection.

This would be easily defended if they were ever stupid enough to try and litigate.

Will do and I hope so, respectively.

Thank you for your assistance.

With Kindest Regards and Best Wishes

O

[/quote]

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2025, 02:20:10 pm »

Quote from: OlorinTheRed on September 07, 2025, 12:50:07 pm

I've modified the post as suggested.

The Parking Charge Notice is issued on thermal paper and in a tiny font. It is therefore difficult to photograph, but I have posted a copy of the entirety of the PCN below:

<PARK PAY LOGO> Parkpay Services Ltd, www.paymypcn.net

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE
Notice to driver of breach of terms and conditions
of parking as detailed on the signage at site

PCN Number : <redacted>
Date of Service: 11/08/2025
Period of Parking: 00:27
Observation from: 00:22
Observation to: 00:27
Vehicle Reg No: <redacted>
Vehicle Colour: <redacted>
Vehicle Make: <redacted>
Parking Attendant: Abs
Location: Jamaica Street Carpark, 16-26 Ja
REASON FOR ISSUE: No Valid Payment

The Driver is required to pay a charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days

How to pay your parking charge notice

Online: Pay securely 24 hours a day at www.paymypcn.net

Bank: High Street or online banking
Sort Code: <redacted>
Account Number: <redacted>

This is a parking charge notice issued on private land. Payment of this charge may be pursued by the operator through legal means including the courts, which may result in you incurring additional costs if unpaid.

You can appeal against the charge by writing to the car park operator. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, you can make a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Details are given elsewhere on this notice.

The car park operator has agreed to adhere to an AIA Code of Practice.

For free advice regarding your parking charge including advice on appealing, please visit www.247advice.co.uk

I don't know how it happened but the post has been truncated and the bottom section of the PCN was omitted from the previous post.

After the above the PCN continues:

APPEALS
In the event that you wish to dispute liability for this Parking Charge, within 28 days beginning with the date after that on which this notice is given, please provide your full name and address, vehicle registration number and the Parking Reference at the top of this notice providing your full reasons.

Appeal decisions should be provided within 28 days. Where an appeal is submitted within the 14 day timeframe to pay at the reduced rate, and subsequently rejected, you will have a further 14 days to make payment at the reduced rate. Please note where payment is made this will preclude any ability to appeal.

In the event that your appeal is unsuccessful then we will provide you with appropriate details enabling you to lodge an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service. Details of the appeal procedure can be found at www.theIASorg

The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. We will engage with the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you comply with our internal appeals procedure as detailed herein and that thereafter you lodge an appeal to the IAS within 28 days of rejection. If you choose to appeal to the IAS you will lose the ability to pay the charge at the reduced rate. If you do appeal and do not hear from us within 28 days, then please contact us, do not assume that your appeal has been successful.

HOW TO APPEAL:
Online: www.paymypcn.net
EMail: appeals@paymypcn.net
Post: PCN Parking Solutions, PO Box 5419, Hove, BN52 8AN

YOU MUST SUPPLY YOUR NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS FOR APPEALS TO BE PROCESSED.

COMPLAINTS
Please note if you wish to challenge the validity of this charge then you must use appeals procedure detailed above. Other issues can be dealt with under the complaints procedure.

If you wish to complain you MUST complain to us in the first instance by writing to us at the address PO Box 5419, Hove, BN52 8AN. If you are not satisfied with our response, then you may refer your complaint to the IPC. Further details can be found at www.theIPC.info

Registered Keeper Details and Data Processing
We have obtained your personal details including the vehicle registration number and in the event that payment is not made in full within 28 days of issue of this Parking Charge, the vehicle's keeper details may be requested from the DVLA and a notice may be sent to the registered keeper.

Where enforcement action is necessary, your details may be passed onto debt recovery companies and/or solicitors for the purpose of pursuing the outstanding charges. If enforcement action is necessary, then there may be additional charges added to the outstanding amount.

We comply with the DVLA requirements on data release and only retain / process information for the purposes for which it was obtained and in accordance with data protection laws Data Protection Officer - dpo@park-pay.co.uk

For more information please view our Privacy Notice by visiting https://park-pay.co.uk/privacy-policy/

IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO OBJECT UNDER GDPR REGULATIONS IN ANY WAY THEN YOU CAN CONTACT US WITH YOUR CONCERN

[IPC Logo] ParkPay Services Limited
A member of the International Parking Community

Registered in England and Wales Number: <unreadable>
Registered Office: <unreadable>

b789 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2025, 03:48:48 pm »

Thank you for the clarifications. What was the content of the appeal you sent as the authorised representative of the Keeper?

In order to answer some of your points, first I accept that as long as you are authorised by the named person on the PCN, you can deal with it on their behalf. The only reason I mentioned it is because some people simply respond without any authorisation and are not happy when things proceed to debt recovery or court claim in the name of the Keeper.

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (v1.1, 17 Feb 2025) (PPSCoP) says the operator is only required to deal with an appeal from the person the charge is aimed at (driver/keeper/hirer) or from their appropriately authorised representative, and the representative may be asked to show proof of that authority. Your Letter of Authorisation satisfies that, so you can act and the operator must deal with you.

Separately, the same Code requires operators to accept complaints in writing or by e-mail; and where a complaint is, or includes, a challenge to the validity of a parking charge, it must also be treated as an appeal for timing purposes. That underpins the validity of using a written route when the portal blocks third-party submissions.

Correction: I previously said “this wouldn’t stand up in court because there was no loss to the landowner”. That was imprecise. In private parking cases the £100 is usually claimed as a contractual charge, not as damages for loss, so the claimant does not have to prove a financial loss to enforce it (following ParkingEye v Beavis).

The right questions are whether the operator complied with PoFA to hold the Keeper liable, whether a clear and fair contract was formed on the signage, whether the terms are transparent and fair under the Consumer Rights Act, and whether the operator’s own payment system and rules made compliance impossible at midnight. In this case payment for Monday was made before the vehicle left, the entrance signage is weak and “all day” ending at 23:59 is potentially misleading, there was no forward-purchase option, and the website failed around midnight.

Those points, together with striking any added “debt recovery” sums and requiring proof of landowner authority, are the grounds that matter. My earlier “no loss” line was shorthand and not the correct legal basis; the defence would rely on the contractual, statutory and fairness arguments above.

Here is a PoFA (Schedule 4) checklist against the wording of the NtD, with the exact limbs it falls foul of and those that are at least arguable.

Clear non-compliance

1. Para 7(2)(a) and 7(3): “period of parking”

The notice prints “Period of Parking: 00:27” (a time of day, not a period). The “Observation from 00:22 to 00:27” line is not stated to be the period and conflicts with “00:27” being described as “Period”. PoFA requires a single period of parking to be specified; what’s printed is ambiguous and not a period.

2. Para 7(2)(f): date and time when the notice is given

The notice shows “Date of Service: 11/08/2025” but no time of giving. PoFA requires the NtD to specify both the date and the time when the notice is given (i.e. when it was affixed/handed). A photo timestamp on a website does not cure an omission on the face of the NtD.

Strong/arguable non-compliance

3) Para 7(2)(a): “relevant land”

“Location: Jamaica Street Carpark, 16–26 Ja” appears truncated. If there is any doubt as to the precise site, this fails the requirement to specify the relevant land with sufficient clarity.

4. Para 7(2)(b): describe the parking charges and the circumstances/means by which the requirement arose

The NtD says “breach of terms… as detailed on the signage at site” and “Reason: No Valid Payment”, but it does not actually describe “those charges”, the circumstances that made them payable, or the means by which they were brought to the driver’s attention beyond a bare reference to signage. That thin description is at least arguable non-compliance.

5. Para 7(2)(c): total amount of the unpaid parking charges “as at a time specified”

The NtD states “£100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days” but does not tie the amount to an “as at” time. Further, PoFA’s wording refers to “unpaid parking charges” (tariff due for the period), yet the NtD only states the contractual parking charge (the £100 PCN) and no unpaid tariff. Many operators conflate the two; it’s an arguable defect.

6. Para 7(2)(e): identify the creditor and specify how/whom to pay

“Parkpay Services Ltd” is named and payment routes are given, but the NtD does not expressly identify Parkpay as “the creditor”. Some judges accept implicit identification; others prefer explicit wording. Treat this as arguable.

Likely compliant items

• Para 7(4): given while stationary and before removal from the land (it was affixed to the windscreen).
• Para 7(2)(g): sets out dispute/appeal arrangements and mentions the IAS.

Bottom line: you have two clean PoFA points (period of parking; time of giving) and several decent supporting/arguable ones (relevant land clarity, description of charges/circumstances, “as-at” time for the amount, explicit creditor identification). If they later try to hold the keeper liable, these para 7 defects prevent keeper liability unless a subsequent NtK fully (and strictly) meets para 8.

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #13 on:** September 11, 2025, 04:02:11 pm »

Wow! That was a lot more detailed than I was expecting. Thank you so very much for that. I am most grateful.

The content of the appeal letter boils down to "In light of the fact that the web-site was not working when attempting to extend the paid for period of parking, and that a ticket was purchased as soon as practicable once the web-site was working, I believe it would be fair, equitable, and in the interests of natural justice to cancel PCN <redacted> and therefore request that you do so."

Details of the relevant payment receipt reference numbers, timing thereof, etc. were given but the essence of the appeal is that a ticket was purchased as soon as practicable once the web-site enabled this to be done.

I shall await the outcome of the appeal, and post back here with the result.

Thanks again for everything.

With Kindest Regards and Best Wishes

O

OlorinTheRed · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2025, 01:10:56 pm »

As predicted by those here that commented, the appeal has been rejected.

Here's the contents of the response:

<Quote>
Date of Posting: 16 September 2025
Parking Charge Reference Number: <redacted>
Vehicle Registration Number: <redacted>
Location: Jamai/ca Street Car Park, 16-28 St James Street, Liverpool, L1 0AB
Issue Date: 11/08/2025
Reason for Issue: No Valid Payment
Balance Due: £60.00

Dear <registered keeper's first and middle name>

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge. Having noted your comments and checking the evidence gathered when issuing the Parking Charge, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected for the reason(s) detailed below:

As per the terms and conditions of the car park - Vehicles must display a valid pay and display ticket, and valid permit in the windscreen with all of the details clearly visible, or have a valid e-permit registered to the vehicle in question.
Our evidence shows that, at the time of the vehicle inspection, there was no valid ticket/permit/e-permit for your vehicle contrary to the displayed terms and conditions, and pursuant to these terms, a parking charge was issued at 00:27.
We have noted the contents of your appeal but would advise it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure payment is made to cover the full period of parking on site via one of the available payment methods. At the time of the inspection there was no valid payment in place and a parking charge was issued accordingly.
In light of the situation and as a gesture of goodwill we have reduced the balance back to £60 for 14 days only to allow payment at the lower rate. Please ensure payment is made during this period or the balance will revert to £100.
As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage.

We now require payment of the parking charge to be made within 28 days of this letter.
If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal you will need your Parking Charge number and your vehicle registration. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter. Please visit www.theias.org for full details.

<CENTRED RED TEXT> IMPORTANT NOTE </>
Please note you cannot appeal this charge to the IAS if it is paid. Should you decide to appeal to the IAS and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due, payment should be made to the Operator within 28 days from the date of the IAS rejection notification.

For free advice regarding your parking charge, including advice on appealing, please visit: www.247advice.co.uk

Regards

<Unreadable signature>

Please see overleaf for 'How to Pay'
<end quote>

I am inclined to appeal to the IAS using the points set out in the post by b789 on 10th September, namely the parts of POFA Schedule 4 against which the NtD was non-compliant.

Would this be an advisable course?

Any other hints, tips, or advice please?

Thanks

Regards

O

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket (Read 2258 times)

OlorinTheRed

PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

jfollows

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

b789

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

b789

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

b789

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

b789

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket

OlorinTheRed

Re: PCN Issued whilst web-site down and driver unable to purchase ticket