Before I continue, can you confirm that you have not responded or appealed this PCN to date?
It is too late to appeal and in any case, this is an IPC member and any secondary appeal to the IAS would have been futile anyway.
Where this will be won is once they issue a county court claim. It may depend on who they use as their bulk litigator of choice. In general, they use DCB Legal, which you can guarantee, will be discontinued as long as the claim is defended.
The defence is based on the statutory failures that DCB Legal make. You also have the added defence that if you were engaged in permitted use (e.g., waiting for a charger to activate, troubleshooting a fault), you can argue that the time spent was not in breach of terms—even if technically “parked”.
If the bay was not under Bank Park’s enforcement authority (e.g., PoGo Charge bay), then even if parked, no breach occurred.
Also, the NtK fails to distinguish between time spent driving, waiting, or charging, therefore the “period of parking” is not properly specified under PoFA 9(2)(a).
Additionally, private parking operators are service providers under the Equality Act. They are legally required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled users. If the EV charger was malfunctioning and you needed extra time, failure to accommodate that need may constitute unlawful discrimination.
If the signage doesn’t clearly explain how disabled users can extend time or seek assistance, that’s a procedural failure. If the operator escalated the charge without considering your disability, they may have breached their duty of care, although, they would not know that if you have not yet appealed or had any communication with them.
As a disabled motorist, you were using the EV charger in good faith. The equipment malfunctioned, requiring extended time on site. You remained in the vehicle throughout. At no point did the operator provide any mechanism for disabled users to report difficulties, request assistance, or seek reasonable adjustments.
Their system is designed to penalise without inquiry or accommodation, in breach of their duty under the Equality Act 2010. The failure to anticipate and provide for disabled users renders this charge procedurally and legally defective.
