I appeal through the IAS and got this reply;
We enforce the parking restrictions at: Atlantic / Pacific Crescent, Wembley, Middlesex. HA9 0PZ. Parking in this area is only allowed for the purpose of loading/unloading, restricted to a 20- Minute maximum stay with no return within 1-hour. There is also no grace period.
The above vehicle exceeded the maximum stay.
Please see the following attachments:
1. Postal PCN.
2. Appeal Correspondence.
3. Vehicle entry
4. Vehicle exit
The above VRM was captured via the ANPR system entering the area at 12:16:44 on the 06/10/2024 and again upon exiting at 12:45:26, as seen on attachment 1. Therefore, the driver exceeded the maximum stay of 20-minutes (25minutes in total) and incurred a Parking Charge Notice.
The appellant confirms they were in the area at the time of the contravention, however they are permitted to remain within the area for a maximum of 20 minutes only. We do not hold images or footage of the vehicle at the location, only of it entering and exiting, this is how an ANPR site works. As can be seen on pre-loaded attachments there are numerous signs around the area including at the entrance advising drivers of the restrictions in place. ANPR cameras captured the vehicle entering and exiting the area (attachments 3&4), this is time/date stamped and is evidence the vehicle remained within the restricted area for over the allowed 20 minutes period.
As the appellant overstayed the allowed 20minutes period the parking charge was issued correctly. No evidence has been provided to conform the vehicle was booked on the system in place to obtain a time window or that the appellant had permission to park over to allowed time period. Signage within the area has been audited to ensure all required standards are met.
In summation, the terms and conditions of the parking contract, and all charges, are well advertised throughout the development. By remaining at the site, the driver accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the contract, including the charges for breach of that contract.
Kind regards
E Jane
UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd
What would you recommend on how to procee
The IAS are unlikely to accept any appeal, just as UKPPO did not either. However, whilst I normally would not advise wasting time and effort on an IAS appeal (less than 5% success rate), in this instance, it may be worth a shot.
However, please realise that, should the appeal not be successful, this would certain be worth challenging all the way to a claim in the small claims track of the county court should UPPPO want to take it that far. There is persuasive case law that shows that their signage is unable to form a contract.
In the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] in paragraphs 20-21, HHJ Harris QC distinguished “parking” from “loading/unloading,” noting:
“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it … a vehicle engaged in loading or unloading is not ‘parked’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”
Additionally, the signage does not specify that the 20-minute limit applies to the entire time on the land, not just "loading and unloading" or "parked". Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and unambiguous. If the signage was intended to enforce a time limit for the total duration on the land (including time driving along the road), this should have been clearly stated.
Here is some suggested wording for the IAS appeal that you may want to consider, for what it's worth:
Appeal to IAS: Denial of Contractual Liability
I, as the registered keeper, deny any contractual liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office. The signage terms are contradictory and ambiguous, rendering compliance impossible. My appeal is based on the following points:
1. Contradictory and Legally Impossible Signage Terms
The signage states, “Parking is only allowed whilst loading and unloading.” This creates an impossible condition, as “loading/unloading” is not synonymous with “parking.” In Jopson v Homeguard (2016) B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC distinguished “parking” from “loading/unloading,” noting:
“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it … a vehicle engaged in loading or unloading is not ‘parked’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”
The signage demands that the vehicle be both “parked” and engaged in “loading/unloading,” which is inherently contradictory. Since the driver was engaged solely in unloading goods as part of official duties, the vehicle was not “parked” and therefore cannot have breached any terms regarding a parking duration.
2. ANPR Limitations and Inaccurate Time Representation
The PCN is based on ANPR-captured entry and exit times, which inaccurately represent the actual unloading period. These times reflect entry and exit from the road, not the duration during which the vehicle was stationary and actively unloading. The signage does not specify that the 20-minute limit applies to the entire time on the land, nor does it clarify that ANPR timings would be used in this way.
3. Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Requirement for Clear and Transparent Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and unambiguous. If the signage was intended to enforce a time limit for the total duration on the land (including time driving along the road), this should have been clearly stated. The current wording misleads drivers into understanding that the 20-minute limit applies to time spent actively loading or unloading.
This ambiguity is fundamentally unfair, as it creates confusion and imposes an unreasonable penalty on drivers who act in accordance with the apparent purpose of the signage. Without explicit clarification, the terms are legally invalid under the CRA.
4. Denial of Contractual Liability
For these reasons, I deny any contractual liability. The vehicle was not “parked” and was present only to unload goods, as allowed by the signage. The ambiguous terms on the signage make it impossible to determine that any contract was breached.
Conclusion
Due to the contradictory and unclear terms on the signage, the flawed use of ANPR to determine unloading duration, and the CRA requirement for clear and transparent terms, I request that the IAS cancel this PCN. The driver’s actions complied with the signage's intended purpose, and no enforceable breach of contract occurred.
