PCM Parking fine Residental Area whilst unloading

TXF_17

IAS Decision:
It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. The Appellant may suggest that they were stopped rather than parked and therefore the PCN is incorrect. I do not agree with this point, as if they were correct this would entitle a driver to ‘stop' indefinitely so long as they did not leave their vehicle unattended. I am satisfied that the images provided prove that the vehicle was parked as alleged.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

PCM saying the two signs are essentially alluding to the same thing:



Sign my car was infront of submitted as secondary evidence:


Sign submitted by the parking operative

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

TXF_17 said:

So for my situation, ignore debt collection. Expect to pay up to £212 in court fees if I lose. Any advice on winning my court case?

Simply that we help 99% of people to win by using the easy Template Defence. In terms of facts and law, this is your main point, and you are covered by persuasive appeal authorities such as Jopson v Homeguard. You won't lose in court:

The Situation: I stopped for less than a few minutes directly outside my own ground-floor property to help my disabled mother from the car to my front door, which is less than a metre away.

Typical of this apparently 'bent' kangaroo court that it ignored an admittance that the sign picture was false. 

Please show us:

1. - the reply by PCM saying that the different sign was 'essentially the same thing'

2. - the IAS joke decision.

I want to use IAS decisions like this one (where you say that PCM provided a false sign and admitted it, yet the IAS accepted it) as evidence in my response to the MHCLG Public Consultation this week.

Please also do it! And just a reminder even though this is stressful: while your case is quiet, before the end of next week please please do the government's Public Consultation.

As I mentioned before, we need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

You must also make sure you answer the question about what is wrong with the IAS.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

TXF_17 said:

IAS Decision:
It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

The Appellant may suggest that they were stopped rather than parked and therefore the PCN is incorrect. I do not agree with this point, as if they were correct this would entitle a driver to ‘stop' indefinitely so long as they did not leave their vehicle unattended. I am satisfied that the images provided prove that the vehicle was parked as alleged.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

--------------------------------------

PCM saying the two signs are essentially alluding to the same thing:



Sign my car was infront of submitted as secondary evidence:


Sign submitted by the parking operative

 A typical 'decision' from the kangaroo court. Did you know that every word except one sentence is a template seen before? Google that whole joke decision wording and you'll find it again and again from the IAS!

And those signs are completely different!