PCN Issued While Queuing to Exit Gridlocked Car Park

UpDownStrange

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81894083#Comment_81894083

I went round in circles with the managing agent, Cushman & Wakefield, trying to get it cancelled to no avail. Just constantly met with "we can't do that, I'll transfer you to X department", eventually ending back up at the main switchboard.

I do have a ~10 second video showing the gridlock. You think this will be enough? Link below.

https://youtube.com/shorts/m1u769Ics40?si=R1F0qXQo0EGwkmEK

Coupon-mad

It will have to be.

Go into a lot of detail about how busy the car park was and why there was gridlock (broken traffic lights on street, or a local sports event?).

UpDownStrange

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81894347#Comment_81894347

Here's my first draft. Appreciate any feedback.

I submit this appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by Premier Park. I dispute the charge in full. No parking breach occurred. The driver returned to the vehicle well before the three-hour free parking period expired and attempted to leave the site, but was prevented from doing so by extreme congestion affecting the entire retail park. The vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted time; it was occupied and attempting to exit. The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which do not measure parking time and do not account for unavoidable gridlock within the site. Contemporaneous video evidence is provided to support this appeal.

1. No Parking Breach Occurred

I dispute this Parking Charge Notice in full because no parking breach occurred.

The location offers three hours of free parking. The vehicle did not remain parked beyond that period. The driver returned to the vehicle well over an hour before the three-hour free parking allowance expired. The engine was started and the driver immediately attempted to leave the site, but the entire retail park was completely gridlocked. Congestion extended throughout the internal road layout and across all lanes and exit routes. Vehicles were unable to move despite drivers being present and actively attempting to exit.

The vehicle was therefore not parked beyond the permitted time. It was occupied, engine running, and attempting to leave the site. Time spent stationary in a traffic queue while trying to exit a congested retail park does not constitute “parking”. At no stage did the driver choose to remain parked beyond the free allowance. The vehicle was physically prevented from exiting through no fault of the driver.

2. ANPR Entry/Exit Timestamps Do Not Measure Parking Time

The operator’s case relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. ANPR records the time a vehicle enters and leaves the site perimeter. It does not record:

• when the vehicle parked in a bay

• when the vehicle vacated the bay

• whether the vehicle was in transit

• whether the vehicle was trapped in congestion

The operator has chosen a monitoring method that measures “time on site”, not “time parked”.

In this case, the ANPR system simply recorded that the vehicle was unable to exit due to severe congestion. It does not and cannot establish that the vehicle remained parked beyond the permitted period. Treating unavoidable exit-queue time as if it were deliberate parking time is fundamentally flawed and does not demonstrate any breach of the stated maximum stay.

3. Extreme Site-Wide Congestion – Video Evidence

Contemporaneous video evidence was taken at the time and is provided to POPLA. The footage clearly shows:

• Extreme and unnavigable congestion extending throughout all internal lanes.

• Vehicles stationary across the entire site.

• No cars moving.

• The vehicle positioned in a traffic lane, not in a parking bay.

• The driver queuing in a line of traffic, completely unable to leave.

The vehicle was not parked. It was in a live traffic lane, in a queue, with the engine running, awaiting the opportunity to exit. The driver had no ability to influence the pace of traffic and no alternative exit route available. The delay was entirely outside the driver’s control and arose solely from conditions within the site itself.

4. Frustration of Contract / Impossibility of Performance

Even if the operator asserts that “maximum stay” refers to total time on site (which is disputed), performance of the alleged contract was rendered impossible.

The driver attempted to leave before the expiry of the free parking period. Timely exit was prevented by extreme congestion within the retail park.

Where performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond a party’s control, the contract is frustrated. The driver cannot be held liable for failing to leave within three hours when exit was physically prevented by conditions on the operator’s own site.

The operator cannot monetise congestion that occurs within its own managed premises and is outside the motorist’s control.

5. Ambiguity of “Maximum Stay 3 Hours” – Interpretation in Favour of the Consumer

The signage states: “Maximum stay 3 hours”. It does not define whether this refers to 3 hours parked in a bay, or 3 hours total time on site measured by ANPR. These are materially different interpretations.

A reasonable motorist would interpret “maximum stay” as referring to parking time — the period during which the vehicle occupies a bay.

The signage does not clearly warn motorists that unavoidable time spent queuing to exit due to site-wide congestion will be treated as chargeable parking time.

Where a contractual term drafted by the operator is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party who drafted it. Any ambiguity regarding the meaning of “maximum stay” must therefore be resolved in favour of the consumer.

In this case, the reasonable interpretation is that the maximum stay refers to parking time. The vehicle did not remain parked beyond three hours.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good. May or may not win at POPLA but you'll never pay anyway.

1505grandad

Just thinking out loud:-

NtK states - vehicle "parked on private land in breach of t & c"

ppssCoP states:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

"b. Parked

a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving."

It also states:-

"NOTE: Common sense must be applied to the circumstances and evidence available. (Page 49)

"Annex F - Parking operators should consider the spirit of the Appeals Charter when deciding
appeals.

F.2 “No-stopping” zones"

I would suggest that because the only reason the pcn was issued was because the driver was not in a parking bay (parked) but "stopped" in the cp through no fault of their own.

Therefore I would maintain that obviously common sense requires the following mitigating circumstance to be applicable:-

"F.2.1 Appeals where the charge should be cancelled in “No-stopping” zones

f) due to stationary or slow-queuing traffic preventing the vehicle from moving"

UpDownStrange

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81895401#Comment_81895401

Thanks for this! I'll incorporate it into my appeal.

UpDownStrange

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81895199#Comment_81895199

Thanks. What would you recommend I use for my "reason for appeal"? To me the most sensible ones would be:

• I was not improperly parked.

• Extreme circumstances prevented me from parking correctly. (I guess not this one because I'm not arguing I couldn't park correctly, I'm arguing I couldn't leave after parking had finished.)

• Other.

Coupon-mad

Post 3 of the NEWBIES thread already tells you what to choose, and about comments stage too.