DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106942--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: cpj1967
Date: January 22, 2026, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/ccmGspz2
#Post#: 106948--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 22, 2026, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd be minded to play this with a straight bat - you can appeal
as the keeper pointing out that due to snow, the end bay was
entirely unusable. Their enforcement therefore had no commercial
justification. Add in to that the fact that the PCN fails to
contain a period of parking, and as such they have neither
proved the vehicle remained there for longer than the mandatory
consideration period, nor have they specified a valid period of
parking as required to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. When
I've more time I can draft something up, unless someone beats me
to it.
--- Quote from: 666 link ---
>
> Not so. If everyone parked like that, only the bays at ether
end of each row would be unusable. The capacity would be
reduced, but not halved.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fair point. Perhaps you can help the OP with their appeal?
#Post#: 106953--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: 666
Date: January 22, 2026, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I'd be minded to play this with a straight bat - you can
appeal as the keeper pointing out that due to snow, the end bay
was entirely unusable. Their enforcement therefore had no
commercial justification. Add in to that the fact that the PCN
fails to contain a period of parking, and as such they have
neither proved the vehicle remained there for longer than the
mandatory consideration period, nor have they specified a valid
period of parking as required to hold the keeper liable under
PoFA. When I've more time I can draft something up, unless
someone beats me to it.
>
> [quote author=666 link=topic=9577.msg106940#msg106940
date=1769085888]
> Not so. If everyone parked like that, only the bays at ether
end of each row would be unusable. The capacity would be
reduced, but not halved.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fair point. Perhaps you can help the OP with their appeal?
[/quote]
Not on that point, but other possible angles.
Since the car park does not require payment, (a) there can be no
commercial justification, and (b) can there even be a contract
to enforce?
#Post#: 106955--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 22, 2026, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 666 link ---
>
> Since the car park does not require payment, (a) there can be
no commercial justification, and (b) can there even be a
contract to enforce?
>
--- End Quote ---
I think (a) would be hard to argue on the basis of the car park
being free. The car park in ParkingEye vs Beavis was free (from
memory), and it was that case in which the Supreme Court ruled
on the commercial justification issue in the first place. In a
retail park car park, I think it would be easy for the operator
to argue there is a commercial justification in ensuring people
don't park in a way that takes up 2 bays, as this reduces the
number of bays available for genuine customers who might wish to
spend money at the retail park. However, in this case I agree
there's an argument to be made around commercial justification,
although I think the angle to go at it from is that the end
space the OP's car was straddling was unusable anyway, so the
driver didn't reduce the capacity of the car park by parking in
that manner (which would generally be the commercial
justification for enforcing against cars that straddle bays).
On (b), there generally doesn't need to be money changing hands
for a contract to be formed, as long as there is some
'consideration'.
#Post#: 106962--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 22, 2026, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No PoFA available to the operator as the NtK does not contain an
invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) The notice must invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
#Post#: 107090--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: cpj1967
Date: January 23, 2026, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
does the fact that the adjacent bay was (at least) partially
unusable as it full of snow due to car park clearing have any
bearing at all?
#Post#: 107096--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 23, 2026, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would say so, as I have already suggested in my previous
comments.
#Post#: 107100--------------------------------------------------
Re: SNOW
DIR By: cpj1967
Date: January 23, 2026, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
based on the advice to date, should i draft and post on here an
appeal for consideration
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page