DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91997--------------------------------------------------
Parking ticket in Margate car park
DIR By: PCN ticket
Date: September 29, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
Driver parked in the car park and paid for parking but was over
by 14 minutes but did not know, the keeper received a PCN and it
was appealed but rejected.
attached is the PCN and rejection letter.
Please advise what can be done.
HTML https://ibb.co/d49FBRJ2
HTML https://ibb.co/0ydTsdK3
HTML https://ibb.co/qLtn9tz6
HTML https://ibb.co/RTRKbs96
Thanks
#Post#: 92029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking ticket in Margate car park
DIR By: Dave65
Date: September 29, 2025, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was the car park pay by machine?
You could claim extra time as the blue badge holder needed extra
time.
#Post#: 92041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking ticket in Margate car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 29, 2025, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to the IAS with the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> [indent]A. Equality Act 2010 – failure to make reasonable
adjustments
> The driver/occupant is a disabled Blue Badge holder who
reasonably required additional time to access/exit the vehicle
and leave the site. The operators rejection states that
“disabled concessions do not apply”. A blanket policy of
identical treatment is unlawful where it places a disabled
person at a substantial disadvantage.
>
> Sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 impose a duty on
service providers to make reasonable adjustments. A simple and
proportionate adjustment here is extra time (beyond any stated
grace) without penalty. The PCN must be cancelled on this ground
alone. The operator should provide a copy of their written
policy and training materials evidencing how reasonable
adjustments are identified and applied in practice, and explain
why no adjustment was offered in this case once disability was
notified.
>
> B. Consideration and grace periods – ANPR ‘gate-to-gate’ is
not ‘period of parking’
> The alleged overrun derives from ANPR entry/exit timestamps.
ANPR records site duration, including time to find a bay,
unload/reload, and queue to exit. The Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP) requires a consideration period on
arrival and a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of
parking. Even without disability-related adjustments, a small
variation between paid time and ANPR “on site” time is within
the Code’s mandatory allowances. The operator is put to strict
proof of the exact period of parking (not simply ANPR gate
times), and evidence that both the consideration period and the
end-of-stay grace period were afforded in full, then explain how
these were reconciled with disability-related extra time.
>
> The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate
signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact
location of the alleged contravention. This must include a
detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and
legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must
demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant
with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the
alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font
size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
>
> 2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> 3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
>
> 4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
>
> 6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this
really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict
proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186),
no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.[/indent]
>
> If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements
and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the
operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to
the growing concern that this appeals service is neither
independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
>
> In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking ticket in Margate car park
DIR By: PCN ticket
Date: October 1, 2025, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes the was pay by machine
#Post#: 92347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking ticket in Margate car park
DIR By: PCN ticket
Date: October 1, 2025, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok I will send this written statement as appeal
Thank you appreciate it
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1