PCN Issued While Queuing to Exit Gridlocked Car Park

UpDownStrange

Please could someone look through my reply before I submit it to POPLA? Keen to get any feedback.

The operator’s evidence submission does not meaningfully address the points raised in my appeal. Instead, it appears to be a generic template response that simply repeats the ANPR entry and exit timestamps and asserts that the vehicle remained “on site” beyond the maximum stay period. None of the issues raised in my appeal have been addressed. In particular, the operator has failed to engage with the evidence showing that the vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted period and was instead trapped in gridlocked traffic while attempting to leave the site well before the time limit expired.

The operator’s evidence fails to address the central argument of my appeal and instead relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. These timestamps only record when a vehicle enters and leaves the site perimeter; they do not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms. My appeal made it clear that the vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted period. The driver returned to the vehicle well before the three-hour limit expired and attempted to leave the site. However, the entire retail park was gridlocked and vehicles were unable to move. The vehicle was therefore stationary in a traffic lane while queuing to exit, not parked in a bay.

The operator’s evidence does not engage with this point at all. Instead, it simply repeats that the vehicle remained “on site” for 3 hours and 16 minutes. This does not establish that the vehicle was parked for that duration. Time spent stationary in a traffic queue while attempting to leave a congested site is not “parking”. The operator has produced no evidence showing the vehicle parked beyond the permitted period. Their ANPR system is incapable of making that distinction, as it only records entry and exit times.

The contemporaneous video evidence submitted with my appeal clearly shows the true circumstances. It demonstrates that the vehicle was positioned in a live traffic lane with the engine running, surrounded by stationary vehicles and unable to move. The footage shows that all internal lanes within the retail park were blocked and that vehicles across the site were stationary. The vehicle was not occupying a parking bay and was clearly attempting to exit. The operator’s evidence does not address this footage in any meaningful way and provides no explanation for the gridlock that prevented vehicles from leaving the site.

The operator’s own contract states that parking charge notices may be issued for vehicles parked in contravention of the terms. The operator has not demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in contravention of any term. Their entire case relies on the assumption that time on site equates to parking time, which is not supported by the evidence. The fact that a vehicle was unable to leave due to severe congestion within the site does not constitute a breach of parking terms.

The circumstances also amount to frustration of contract. Even if the operator asserts that the three-hour limit refers to time on site rather than time parked (which is disputed), the driver attempted to leave before the expiry of the permitted period but was prevented from doing so by circumstances entirely outside their control. The site was gridlocked and vehicles were unable to move. A party cannot be held liable for failing to perform a contractual obligation where performance becomes impossible due to events beyond their control. The operator’s submission does not address this point at all.

There are also clear inconsistencies in the operator’s evidence regarding the grace period. In their submission they state that the maximum stay is three hours and that a 10-minute grace period is provided, giving motorists 3 hours and 10 minutes to exit the car park. However, the contract they have provided states that the time limit is “3 hours plus an additional period of grace of 15 minutes.” These two statements cannot both be correct. The operator has therefore presented conflicting evidence regarding the applicable grace period. Where a consumer contract contains ambiguous terms, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that the interpretation most favourable to the consumer prevails.

There are also inconsistencies in the way the alleged overstay has been described. At one point the operator states that the vehicle remained on site for 3 hours and 16 minutes, but then later in the same document they assert that the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay period by 10 minutes and 1 second. These figures are not consistent with one another and further call into question the reliability of the operator’s calculations and the accuracy of the operator’s evidence.

The operator has produced no evidence to contradict the video footage showing that vehicles were unable to move and that the driver was already attempting to leave well before the three-hour limit expired.

The operator’s evidence therefore fails to demonstrate that any breach occurred. It relies solely on ANPR timestamps that measure time on site rather than parking time and does not address the evidence showing that the vehicle was queuing to exit due to severe congestion. The operator has also provided inconsistent information regarding the applicable grace period and the alleged duration of the overstay.

For these reasons, the operator has not established that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions, and the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled.

Car1980

Sounds good. You could throw in something facetious like "by the operator's reasoning the driver should have driven his time machine onto the site 16 minutes beforehand on the off-chance they might require one."

Give them the disdain they deserve.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove all this which is just repetition:

"The operator’s evidence fails to address the central argument of my appeal and instead relies entirely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. These timestamps only record when a vehicle enters and leaves the site perimeter; they do not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms. My appeal made it clear that the vehicle was not parked beyond the permitted period. The driver returned to the vehicle well before the three-hour limit expired and attempted to leave the site. However, the entire retail park was gridlocked and vehicles were unable to move. The vehicle was therefore stationary in a traffic lane while queuing to exit, not parked in a bay.

The operator’s evidence does not engage with this point at all. Instead, it simply repeats that the vehicle remained “on site” for 3 hours and 16 minutes. This does not establish that the vehicle was parked for that duration. Time spent stationary in a traffic queue while attempting to leave a congested site is not “parking”. The operator has produced no evidence showing the vehicle parked beyond the permitted period. Their ANPR system is incapable of making that distinction, as it only records entry and exit times."