Advice needed for signage appeal - PPM - IAS appeal rejected

M03

I have neglected to update this thread, so here is the current situation:

IAS appeal was rejected on the 27th August:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and therefore that a Parking Charge Notice was lawfully issued. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at all times and that it conformed with the terms and conditions of the parking operator's signage displayed at this site. The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.

The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein.
I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not.

Instead, the operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time.

On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue because the Appellant has accepted being the driver.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."


PPM have sent another copy of the PCN on the 24th September, which I have ignored.

It has been about a month since that, so I am expecting to get another letter from them soon, threatening court action (again). It has now almost been a year since the original PCN was issued

Coupon-mad

M03 said:

I have neglected to update this thread, so here is the current situation:

IAS appeal was rejected on the 27th August:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and therefore that a Parking Charge Notice was lawfully issued. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at all times and that it conformed with the terms and conditions of the parking operator's signage displayed at this site. The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.

The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein.
I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not.

Instead, the operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time.

On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue because the Appellant has accepted being the driver.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."


PPM have sent another copy of the PCN on the 24th September, which I have ignored.

It has been about a month since that, so I am expecting to get another letter from them soon, threatening court action (again). It has now almost been a year since the original PCN was issued

Please post that in my IAS Decisions 2025 thread, thankyou!