Whilst any appeal is going to be rejected, if you feel the urge to try, here is a suggestion:
I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on [date] for the vehicle with registration number [registration]. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I make this appeal on the following grounds:
1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The NtK fails to meet the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically Paragraph 9(2)(a), which mandates that the notice must:
“Specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Failure to Specify the "Period of Parking":
The NtK references a single timestamp and the vague phrase, “the period of parking that immediately followed the time specified above.” This wording is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of PoFA, which demands a clearly defined “period of parking.”
Legal Consequence of Non-Compliance:
As the NtK fails to meet the requirements of PoFA, liability for the charge cannot be transferred to me, the registered keeper. This is a critical point, as I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention, and there is no legal basis to pursue me under PoFA.
2. Breach of Proportionality and Fairness Under the SCoP
The Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear principles for parking enforcement, requiring charges to be:
Proportionate: Parking charges must be justified by the impact of the alleged contravention.
Fair and Transparent: There must be no penalty element where the alleged breach does not interfere with the legitimate management of the site.
Application to This Case:
No Obstruction: The vehicle was partially parked in an adjacent bay that was coned off and unavailable for use. This did not obstruct other users or interfere with the operation of the site.
No Loss to the Landowner: As the coned-off bay was not in active use, there was no financial or operational loss to the landowner.
Issuing a PCN under these circumstances is unreasonable, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of fairness and proportionality outlined in the SCoP.
3. Failure to Consider Mitigating Circumstances
The SCoP requires operators to consider mitigating circumstances when issuing and reviewing parking charges. In this case:
The adjacent bay was clearly coned off and unusable by others, eliminating any potential impact on other users.
The vehicle’s position did not cause any obstruction or hinder the effective management of the site.
The lack of any material impact on the landowner or other users further undermines the justification for this PCN.
Conclusion
On these grounds, I request the cancellation of this PCN for the following reasons:
• The NtK fails to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). Consequently, liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper.
• The issuance of the PCN is contrary to the SCoP principles of proportionality and fairness, given the absence of obstruction and loss
Further Requests if the Appeal Is Rejected
Should you choose to reject this appeal, I request the following:
• A detailed explanation of how the NtK complies with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), including a defined “period of parking.”
• An explanation of how the operator has considered the mitigating circumstances in line with the SCoP.
Failure to adequately address these points will leave me no choice but to escalate this matter to the independent appeals service.
Don't be surprised when this is rejected. A subsequent appeal to the IAS is likely to be equally futile and the most likely way this will be resolved is when they issue a debt claim in the small claims track of the county court. Easily defended and most likely outcome is a discontinuance.
