Free Traffic Legal Advice

It would be useful to get a bit of context as to the event(s) in question. The 3 parking charges allege that they have been issued for parking in a disabled bay - the first questions are: (1) Was the disabled bay clearly marked? and (2) Was an occupant of the vehicle disabled? If not, the logical next question in: (3) Why did the driver park there?

There is an argument to be made that none of the notices do not demonstrate a period of parking of sufficient duration to exceed the relevant consideration period, although one could argue that if the driver was indeed considering the terms, they ought to have been visible in some of the photos, in which the signage containing said terms is visible. This argument would not persuade QP or the IAS, but could be argued in court.

It would be useful to get a bit of context as to the event(s) in question. The 3 parking charges allege that they have been issued for parking in a disabled bay - the first questions are: (1) Was the disabled bay clearly marked? and (2) Was an occupant of the vehicle disabled? If not, the logical next question in: (3) Why did the driver park there?

There is an argument to be made that none of the notices do not demonstrate a period of parking of sufficient duration to exceed the relevant consideration period, although one could argue that if the driver was indeed considering the terms, they ought to have been visible in some of the photos, in which the signage containing said terms is visible. This argument would not persuade QP or the IAS, but could be argued in court.

I have been informed by the driver that in hindsight they could now see the bay was marked ( on the ground ). However they parked as they didn’t notice the markings at the time and  assuming it was available to others as the bays are all mirrored and the one on the End ( where they parked ) wasn’t a disabled bay on the mirrored side.
Driver wasn’t disabled.

So a standard appeal is

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 Keeper (NtK) 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. It does not specify “the period of parking” as required. This omission renders the notice non-compliant, and as such, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper.

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. UKPPO 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.

They won’t accept your appeal, nor will the IAS, but eventually they’ll give up if you follow the advice here. Be prepared for it to take months.
Appeal each notice separately.

Send the response, appeal to the IAS if you want, ignore letters from debt collectors and come back when you get a Letter of Claim from a solicitor such as DCB Legal. Search the forum for examples. You will see that these people try and frighten you into paying but eventually give up.

So there is no need to apply to an IAS?

Thanks for all your help btw

It's worth noting that with 3 PCNs in play there is an increased chance of them continuing all the way to a court hearing.