It is too late to appeal and, in any case, even if you could, PD would reject any appeal and the IAS would almost certainly have rejected it too. There are minor technical failures in the NtK with regards to PoFA which would have a limited chance of success if you were to argue them as a basis for not holding the Keeper liable.
However, you have a strong case to argue that no contract was formed, due to the impossibility of registering for free parking, the lack of clarity in the signage, and the absence of financial loss to the operator or landowner. Based on these points, it would be reasonable to challenge the PCN on the grounds that the terms were unenforceable due to the circumstances surrounding the closure of the pub.
If you choose to contest the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and are past any appeal stage, here's what to expect:
Initially, the Private Parking Company (PPC) will send reminder letters, followed by letters from Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs), who often add a fake £60-£70 charge. These DRAs operate on a no-win, no-fee basis and are entirely impotent. As a third party with no involvement in any alleged contract between the driver and the PPC, they cannot take any legal action against you, no matter what they claim.
The DRAs will use intimidating language designed to scare recipients, relying on ignorance of the process and the law. They'll throw around terms like "bailiffs" and "CCJ" (County Court Judgment), but this is pure bluff. They cannot instruct bailiffs or issue a CCJ – only a court can do that, and then only after a formal legal process. As DRAs are merely a third party, their threats are empty and can be safely ignored.
Once the DRAs give up, the PPC may decide to pursue the matter in the small claims track of the county court, but they have up to six years to make this decision. Before they can issue a claim, they must send a Letter of Claim (Loc), giving you 30 days to respond. There is no guarantee that they will actually follow through. It is all part of the intimidation process.
If/when a claim is eventually issued, it will need to be defended. Even then, many claimants will discontinue their case before a hearing, realising that you are not an easy target. The whole process is aimed at getting "low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree" to pay up, and once they see you’re not, they will move on in search of easier prey.
So, if you are up for a fight, here are some possible defence points if they decide to go all the way:
Based on the sign and the OP's statement about the event, there are several points to consider regarding the enforceability of the parking charge and the potential defence.
Key Observations from the Sign:
“Home Bar Patrons Only”:
The sign specifies that parking is exclusively for patrons of the Home Bar. However, if the pub is closed for renovations, there would be no patrons, making it impossible to register for parking. This creates an unfair obligation on drivers, as it places an unreasonable burden on them when they cannot fulfil the condition of registering their vehicle.
“Guests of Home Bar must register their vehicle registration number at reception to qualify for free parking”:
As the pub was closed, it was not possible for the driver to register the vehicle at the reception. This rendered the driver unable to comply with the parking terms. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be fair and transparent. Requiring the driver to register when the venue is closed creates a situation where compliance is impossible, making the term inherently unfair and unenforceable.
“Breach of any term or condition will result in a parking charge of £100”:
While this suggests that failure to comply results in a £100 charge, the inability to comply due to the pub being closed makes the enforcement of the charge unreasonable. Imposing a penalty under these circumstances could be seen as an unfair term under the CRA, since it creates a significant imbalance between the rights of the operator and the consumer, and such terms are not binding.
Defence Points:
Impossibility of Performance:
As the bar was closed, the driver had no means to comply with the requirement to register the vehicle for free parking. In contract law, if fulfilling a term becomes impossible due to circumstances outside the consumer's control (such as the closure of the pub), the contract can be deemed void due to impossibility of performance. Enforcing a parking charge under such conditions is not only unreasonable but also in breach of consumer protection laws, specifically Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act, which prohibits unfair terms from being binding.
Unclear and Unfair Contract Terms:
The signage does not address what drivers should do if the pub is closed, creating ambiguity. This lack of clarity makes the contract terms unfair and non-transparent, which violates Section 68 of the CRA. The driver had no reasonable way to understand how to comply with the parking terms in the event the pub was closed, which means the contract was not formed in a fair manner.
No Offer of Service:
As the pub was closed, there was no valid offer of service that the driver could accept by parking in the bay. Without a clear offer and acceptance, no contract can be said to have been formed. The Consumer Rights Act also supports this point by requiring that terms must be clear and fair—there was no way for the driver to know what alternative actions they should take if the service (in this case, registering the vehicle) was unavailable.
No Loss to the Landowner:
Since this is not a paid parking area and no other vehicles were prevented from parking, the landowner or operator has not suffered any financial loss. The CRA requires that terms must be proportionate and fair. In cases such as ParkingEye v Beavis, the charge was upheld due to a legitimate interest in managing parking, but in this instance, the pub’s closure means there is no legitimate interest, making the charge penal and unreasonable rather than compensatory.
Conclusion:
By including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 throughout the argument, it makes it clear that the parking terms are not only impossible to meet but also unfair and non-transparent, making them unenforceable under both contract law and consumer protection law. The fact that the pub was closed rendered compliance impossible, which falls foul of the CRA’s requirement for fairness and clarity in contract terms, making the £100 parking charge invalid.
