DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 26, 2026, 2:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
People have reported success when they send the email several
times.
#Post#: 130048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: Anon777
Date: September 9, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent a letter and Moorside Legal responded back. Interestingly
they admitted that the PCN wasn't POFA compliant but could still
pursue the driver of the vehicle.
Regardless, they have issued a court claim dated 3 September
that I have received today, as attached.
How to respond?
HTML https://ibb.co/jvXNZdyx
#Post#: 130049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 9, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
File a defence or Acknowledgment of Service by 22 September
If you file an AoS then you have to file a defence by 6 October
You already have the basis of a defence, so don’t lose track of
the key dates and see what other suggest as well as posting a
draft defence here for comments.
#Post#: 130052--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: Anon777
Date: September 9, 2026, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I believe I have grounds for a counterclaim under
disability discrimination. Any idea of how much I should
counterclaim for and anything else I can counterclaim for to
deter them pursuing to court? Some sites suggest a minimum of
£3,000 with added costs due to hurt feelings. I don't mind going
to court and paying the costs if judgement isn't awarded in my
favour. For me £259 isn't a lot but I don't believe I should pay
it based on the circumstances.
#Post#: 130053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 9, 2026, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you counterclaim then you will go to court.
If you do not counterclaim, there is a good chance that the case
will be discontinued by the claimant before having to pay the
court fee. However if you register a counterclaim they can't
easily discontinue, or won't do so because your counterclaim
requiring them to attend court will still be "live".
Parking companies are not required to follow PoFA 2012 and can
issue a claim to anyone they believe to be liable, Believing
this to be unfair and having your feelings hurt won't stand up
without more substance, so you need to think carefully about
your proposed course of action. I can not personally offer any
advice on the disability discrimination route you want to
follow.
#Post#: 130055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 9, 2026, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit lost as to why we're talking about PoFA, in the
opening post the OP sets out that they revealed themselves to be
the driver in the original appeal, so that ship would have
appeared to have sailed.
Do we have a copy of the original appeal - any defence based on
disability may be helped by its contents.
As above, Re. counterclaims. Our advice generally centres around
helping people make these matters go away as quickly and
inexpensively as possible. A counterclaim increases the chances
of a hearing being required, and a £3k+ counterclaim would make
it a no-brainier for the parking company to send a lawyer. A
potential counterpoint is that it might encourage them to make
(or agree to, if you propose it) a 'drop hands' offer, whereby
they agree to drop their case if you agree to drop yours. It's a
risk, and depends on the perceived strength of your
counterclaim.
If you wish to pursue a counterclaim, you may wish to seek legal
advice from someone with relevant expertise in disability
discrimination cases.
#Post#: 130080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: Anon777
Date: September 10, 2026, 3:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't have the original internal appeal but it was basically
the same as my appeal to the IAS, as follows (have highlighted
my main points).
"I am appealing on the grounds of mitigating circumstances.
During the time of the alleged contravention took place, I had
suffered a headache and I was not in a fit state to safely move
the vehicle xxxxxxx from the location where it was parked which
resulted in the vehicle remaining in the car park longer than
the allowed time. The duration my car remained parked meant that
I exceeded the grace period by 12 minutes and 50 seconds.
Please find attached evidence of, lengevity and severity of my
medical condition and the medication I am prescribed that are
used to try to abort headache attacks when they occur. I have
suffered from this condition since the age of 15, I am now 35.
You will see from my medical records and email chain with my
Neurologist from 2020 that my headaches can last 7 hours and
have resulted in me attending A&E.
The parking operator has denied my appeal despite them being
bound under legal duty to make reasonable adjustments under
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 by not placing disbled
people at a disadvantage. A reasonable adjustment provisioned
under this act would be for them to extend the grace period to
cover the period of time I remained parked due to the health
complication that occured.
The parking operator argues that the PCN has been issued
correctly as a reason for rejecting my appeal but I am not
disputing that. They are now aware of my medical condition and
the circumstances which prevented me from exiting the car park
before the maximum time elapsed. Section 29 of the Eqaulity act
2010 makes it unlawful for the parking provider to discriminate
against people with protected characteristics, one of them being
disabled people such as myself.
If an accident occured due to me not being in a fit state to
drive my vehicle from the parking site that they manage would
they take liability for the incident? I think not. It is my
responsibility to only drive my vehicle when I am fit and well.
I cannot control when a headache occurs or if my medication will
successfully abort an attack.
In this car park there is no provision to pay for any amount of
time so paying to extend my stay in the car park was not an
option. Despite what the parking operator has mentioned in their
letter of refusal to my appeal, their signage does not state
that their contact number can be used to inform them that a
motorist has overstayed to prevent the issue of a PCN. Their
signage only states that their 24 hour contact number is to be
used for qeuries regarding making payment or for reporting
malfunctioning equipment. Assuming a motorist will contact them
prior to the issuance of a PCN for an overstay is not a valid
reason for rejecting an appeal, this is exactly what an appeal
process is for."
Ocean Parking responded:
"Mr X who is appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
xxxxxxxxxx has
been named as the registered keeper of the vehicle by the DVLA
and has declared
themselves the driver of the vehicle at the time of the
contravention.
2. The Parking Charge Notice was issued at Frome Retail Park. A
Maximum Stay Period
applies on site, and the car park is monitored by ANPR cameras
for enforcement
purposes of vehicles staying longer than the permitted parking
period. The site is
also patrolled by operatives to ensure the other terms and
conditions of the
Contractual Warning Signs are adhered to.
3. The Postal Parking Charge Notice was issued for the
contravention ‘Exceeded
Maximum Stay Period’ on the x December 2025, as the driver of
vehicle XXXXXX
stayed on site for a duration of 2 hours 22 minutes and 50
seconds, exceeding the 2
Hours Maximum Stay Period.
4. There are Contractual Warning Signs situated throughout Frome
Retail Park, which
state the Maximum Stay Period for parking on site, and the other
Terms and
Conditions that apply. A copy of the Contractual Warning Signage
in place is attached
to the case.
5. The ANPR Camera is checked daily, and all data entries
received are checked
thoroughly before sending a Postal PCN to the Registered Keeper
of the vehicle. The
ANPR camera has captured the quoted times for this vehicle
entering and exiting
Frome Retail Park on the date of the contravention, as can be
seen on the time and
date stamped images within this document.
6. The contractual warning signs in place clearly state ’2 Hours
Maximum Stay’, and
this vehicle was parked in contravention of this term of the
contractual warning
signs. Copies of the signage, a signage plan, and site images of
the signage in place at
this location, are present within our attachments.
7. The ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Registration) records
approximately 1300
entries / exits a day for this location and calculates the stay
duration automatically.
The system is checked for anomalies before a Postal PCN is
issued, and again on
receipt of an Appeal. The times on the images provided, which
are also shown on the
Postal PCN, are supported by the recordings of the appellant’s
vehicle on the date in
question.
8. There is Contractual Warning Signage throughout the site
stating the parking Terms
and Conditions in place, therefore when the appellant parked
on-site, they accepted
them, if they did not agree with the Terms and Conditions, they
did not have to park
there and could have left the site. Ocean Parking have a
contract with the
Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in place,
and the appellant
parked in Contravention of those Terms. Our Signage clearly
states the parking
requirements and the costs of non-compliance.
9. The appellant has submitted their IAS Appeal on several
grounds; however, the
details stated do not negate the appellant from the parking
restrictions in place, nor
do they mitigate the fact the contravention occurred.
10. The appellant has provided Ocean Parking, and The IAS with
evidence, whoever, the
details stated do not negate the appellant from the parking
restrictions in place at
this location, nor do they warrant their vehicle exceeded the
maximum stay period
at this location.
11. Ocean Parking will address the appellant’s points below:
12. “I had suffered a headache and I was not in a fit state to
safely move the vehicle
XXXXXX from the location where it was parked which resulted in
the vehicle
remaining in the car park longer than the allowed time.” – While
Ocean Parking
acknowledge the mitigating circumstances detailed by the
appellant, this would not
negate them from the parking restrictions in place, nor does it
mitigate the fact the
contravention occurred. The appellant failed to contact or
inform Ocean Parking of
these mitigating circumstances at any point before their
internal appeal, therefore,
the PCN was issued correctly.
13. “The parking operator has denied my appeal despite them
being bound under legal
duty to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the
Equality Act 2010 by
not placing disbled people at a disadvantage.” – Should the
appellant wish to
request a reasonable adjustment they should have contacted us on
our 24-hour
phone number and advise us of the adjustment they would have
needed while they
were on-site. Any requested adjustment deemed reasonable would
have been
accommodated, however, we would not consider retrospective
cancellation of a
valid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to be reasonable adjustment.
14. “They are now aware of my medical condition and the
circumstances which
prevented me from exiting the car park before the maximum time
elapsed.” – As
we were not aware of the appellant's reason for overstaying
before they appealed
their PCN, as they did not contact us to inform us of this at
the time, the PCN was
issued correctly. As stated above, while we can make reasonable
adjustments for
motorists who require them, we do not consider retrospective
cancellation a
reasonable adjustment. If the appellant contacted us at the
time, or up to 24 hours
after the parking session took place, they could have prevented
a PCN from being
issued. Nonetheless, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay
period enforced onsite and failed to inform Ocean Parking of
their mitigating circumstances until after
the PCN had been issued. Ocean Parking therefore refute the
appellant's claims that
not cancelling the PCN is an act of discrimination.
15. “Despite what the parking operator has mentioned in their
letter of refusal to my
appeal, their signage does not state that their contact number
can be used to
inform them that a motorist has overstayed to prevent the issue
of a PCN.” – The
contractual warning signage at this location clearly states that
our 24-hour contact
telephone number can be used to contact us, therefore, the
appellant could have
contacted us to advise us that they had overstayed, and the
mitigating circumstances
causing their overstay, and we could have permitted their
vehicle on-site to cover
the overstay, to prevent a PCN from being issued. If the
appellant has left site with
the knowledge that they have exceeded the maximums stay period,
Ocean Parking
are unsure why the appellant would not attempt to contact us to
make us aware of
this, as they had parked in clear contravention of the terms and
conditions enforced
at this location.
16. Customers of the on-site stores are allowed to use the car
park for up to 2 hours,
however, as the appellants vehicle was on-site for 2 hours 22
minutes and 50
seconds, they have exceeded the maximum stay period allowed,
therefore
contravening the terms and conditions outlined on the
Contractual Warning Signage
in place.
17. There are Contractual Warning Signs in place at Frome Retail
Park, copies of which
are enclosed and images showing where the signage is placed have
also been
uploaded, therefore if the appellant has failed to read or
chosen to ignore the
Contractual Warning Signage in place, we cannot be held
responsible for this, nor is
this due to the signage not being visible or clear.
18. Ocean Parking would therefore conclude that this vehicle
XXXXXX, entered and
remained on site in contravention of the Contractual Warning
Signage, and that PCN
reference XXXXXXXXX was correctly issued.
I then responded:
"Ocean Parking has stated that:
"If you were unable to park in line with the parking
restrictions in place, we would assume you would have contacted
Ocean Parking to make us aware of this, and to prevent a PCN
from being issued."
"Should the appellant wish to request a reasonable adjustment
they should have contacted us on our 24-hour phone number and
advise us of the adjustment they would have needed while they
were on-site. Any requested adjustment deemed reasonable would
have been accommodated, however, we would not consider
retrospective cancellation of a valid Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) to be reasonable adjustment.
"we do not consider retrospective cancellation a reasonable
adjustment. If the appellant contacted us at the time, or up to
24 hours after the parking session took place, they could have
prevented a PCN from being issued"
This position is unsustainable in law for the reasons set out
below.
1. Failure to comply with the anticipatory duty under the
Equality Act 2010
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory. As
confirmed by Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance,
service providers must take reasonable steps to anticipate the
needs of disabled users and remove barriers in advance. They are
not entitled to wait for a disabled person to discover
unadvertised procedures or rely on undisclosed assumptions.
Ocean Parking’s approach places disabled motorists at a
substantial disadvantage by requiring the disabled motorist to
somehow know, based solely on Ocean Parking's undisclosed
assumptions, that a telephone call could be used to prevent the
issuance of a PCN, only while on site or up to 24 hours after.
Ocean Parking have therefore failed their anticipatory duty.
2. Undisclosed and unreasonable time limitation
Ocean Parking has relied on an alleged requirement that contact
must be made whilst onsite or within 24 hours in order to
prevent the issuance of a PCN. This limitation is:
    -not displayed on signage;
    -not communicated to motorists at
the point of contract; and
    -not reasonably discoverable by a
disabled user.
Imposing an undisclosed procedural requirement and then refusing
cancellation because it was not met places a disabled person at
further detriment, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.
3. Ocean Parking’s reliance on undisclosed assumptions and
unclear signage
Ocean Parking asserts that its contractual warning signage
states that the 24-hour contact telephone number “can be used to
contact us,” and on that basis claims that I should have
contacted them to advise of an overstay and mitigating
circumstances in order to prevent the issuance of a PCN.
This position misrepresents what the signage actually
communicates to motorists.
The signage at this location expressly limits the purpose of the
contact number to:
queries regarding making payment or on-site payment methods; and
reporting malfunctioning equipment.
The signage does not state that the contact number can, should,
or must be used for:
issues relating to overstays;
requesting permission to remain on site beyond the maximum stay
period; or
preventing the issuance of a PCN.
It is therefore objectively reasonable for a motorist to
conclude that the contact number is not intended for such
purposes or that it is even possible to prevent the issuance of
a PCN. If Ocean Parking intended the telephone number to
function as a mechanism for avoiding a PCN, it was incumbent
upon them to clearly and prominently communicate this on the
signage forming the parking contract. They did not do so,
placing disabled motorists at a particular disadvantage.
Furthermore, under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,
where a term in a consumer contract is ambiguous or capable of
more than one interpretation, the interpretation most favourable
to the consumer must prevail. In this case, the signage makes no
reference to any obligation to telephone the operator in the
event of an overstay, nor does it state that failing to do so
will result in loss of rights or refusal of retrospective
consideration. Any ambiguity must therefore be resolved in the
consumer’s favour. Ocean Parking cannot rely on undisclosed or
unclear information to justify enforcement action or to assert
that retrospective cancellation cannot amount to a reasonable
adjustment.
4. Retrospective cancellation can be a reasonable adjustment
Ocean Parking’s assertion that retrospective cancellation of a
PCN cannot be a reasonable adjustment is incorrect. Where a
charge arises as a result of a failure to meet their
anticipatory duty and to make reasonable adjustments,
cancellation of that charge is an appropriate and proportionate
remedy. Refusing to cancel in such circumstances perpetuates the
disadvantage rather than removing it.
5. Equality Act implications
By failing to communicate that:
contact during the period of parking or 24 hours after was
required for overstays;
such contact could prevent the issuance of a PCN; and
retrospective consideration would not be given,
Ocean Parking has placed disabled motorists at a particular
disadvantage. Only allowing reasonable adjustments while on
site, where this requirement is neither communicated nor
reasonably discoverable, is incompatible with the anticipatory
duty under the Equality Act 2010.
6. No obligation to find parking elsewhere
Ocean Parking has also stated that if I did not agree with the
Terms and Conditions, I did not have to park there and could
have left the site.
This position is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010. The
duty to make reasonable adjustments is intended to ensure that
disabled persons are not placed at a disadvantage in accessing
services. A disabled motorist cannot reasonably be expected to
avoid discrimination by simply leaving and attempting to find
alternative parking because the disabled motorist is aware they
may breach the terms of parking due to their disability.
Suggesting that a disabled person should go elsewhere rather
than be provided with reasonable adjustments amounts to a
failure to remove barriers and undermines the purpose of the
anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010.
7. Signage and contract formation
Given Ocean Parking’s failure to clearly communicate these
alleged requirements on its contractual warning signage or
linked website, no additional legally binding obligations can be
said to have been formed. Ocean Parking cannot rely on
undisclosed assumptions to:
    -defeat an Equality Act claim; or
deny that cancellation of the PCN is a reasonable adjustment
This appeal does not seek discretion or leniency. It seeks
removal of a charge that arose because Ocean Parking failed to:
   -anticipate the needs of disabled users;
provide adequate information on how reasonable adjustments could
be requested, or that such adjustments were only available while
on site or within a limited time period thereafter; and
    -operate a non-discriminatory system
Conclusion
Ocean Parking’s signage, processes, and subsequent refusal to
cancel the PCN collectively amount to a failure to comply with
the Equality Act 2010. The Parking Charge Notice should
therefore be cancelled.
I reserve all my rights under the Equality Act 2010, including
the right to pursue remedies for discrimination should this
matter not be resolved."
IAS then rejected my appeal
#Post#: 130081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: Anon777
Date: September 10, 2026, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
and before I upload redacted medical records proving previous
A&E attendance and diagnosis. This is from the NHS's own site
for the sumatriptan medication I take for aborting the headaches
which states "do not drive".
HTML https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/sumatriptan/side-effects-of-sumatriptan/
HTML https://ibb.co/6chWCHR0
#Post#: 130082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 10, 2026, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth it seems like you've set out your case well,
and Ocean have placed entirely arbitrary restrictions on when
they'll apply reasonable adjustments.
For your defence I think this could be front and centre.
With regard to any counterclaim, I'll have to repeat my previous
advice that my knowledge relates primarily to parking charges,
not claims under the Equality Act.
#Post#: 130085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ocean Parking | Trace - Unpaid parking charge £170
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 10, 2026, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As regards the regulated sector, and prospectively the standard
which a judge would apply, I recommend you read the Equality Act
comment by the Chief Adjudicator in this report:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Adjudicators%20Annual%20Report%202024%2025.docx
There is very limited scope to argue that a diagnosed mental (or
physical) health condition should lead to the cancellation of a
penalty. Adjudicators must approach an appeal on the basis that
the driver possesses the standard of a reasonable and prudent
driver with the skill level which enables the driver to pass a
UK driving test.
If a health condition has an impact on one’s driving, the driver
is obliged by law to notify DVLA so that DVLA can decide whether
the driver can continue to hold a licence, or whether conditions
must be imposed on the licence. A health condition does not
lower the driving standard so that the contravention can be
excused.
Have you informed DVLA?
This case might help clarify your approach:
R (on the application of Amanda Howard) v The Official Receiver
[2013] EWHC 1839 (Admin).
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1839.html
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page