PCN appeal rejected: type 1 diabetes emergency

funkychicks1

Operator: UK Car Park Management (UK CPM)

Thanks in advance for any advice.

In February 2026, I was driving when I began experiencing symptoms of hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). I am a Type 1 diabetic and, following medical advice and DVLA guidance, I stopped at the first safe location available in order to test my blood glucose levels. The nearby car park was full. After testing, I confirmed that my blood sugar levels were dropping and obtained a full sugar drink before continuing my journey. The vehicle was stopped for approximately four minutes in total. The location I stopped at was Spooner Close & Lakeside Drive, Newport, NP10 8FE in order to go into a shop to get a drink to treat my hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). 

A PCN was subsequently issued by UK CPM. I appealed directly to them, explaining that this was a necessary medical stop rather than parking in the ordinary sense. I explained that I had stopped because I was experiencing symptoms of hypoglycaemia whilst driving and that I was acting in accordance with medical advice and road safety guidance.

UK CPM rejected the appeal. They stated that the vehicle had been parked in an area where parking was not permitted and that the charge had been issued correctly because the signage stated that there was no parking or waiting on the roadway.

Following their rejection, I contacted UK CPM again and provided additional evidence, including a photograph of my insulin and a letter from my diabetes doctor. I explained that I had not stopped by choice or convenience, but because I needed to stop immediately in order to test and treat my blood sugar levels. I requested that the matter be reconsidered in light of the medical evidence provided.

Despite this, the charge remained in place. UK CPM's position was that the vehicle had been parked contrary to the terms displayed on the signage. I felt that my medical circumstances and supporting evidence had not been properly considered.

I then appealed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In my appeal I explained the circumstances of the stop, provided evidence of my Type 1 diabetes, attached my doctor's letter and insulin evidence, and referred to DVLA guidance which states that drivers with diabetes should never ignore warning signs and should stop safely as soon as possible.

In April 2026, UK CPM uploaded their evidence to the IAS. Their position was that the vehicle was parked on a roadway where parking was prohibited, that signage was clear, and that a parking contract had been formed. They also stated that the supporting medical evidence had not been provided at the original appeal stage.

I submitted a response to the operator's evidence, reiterating that this was a necessary medical stop rather than parking, re-uploading my medical evidence, and explaining that I had stopped at the first safe opportunity because I was experiencing symptoms of hypoglycaemia whilst driving.

The IAS has now dismissed my appeal. The adjudicator acknowledged my circumstances but concluded that they amounted to mitigation rather than a legal defence. The decision states that the Equality Act does not require the operator to disapply the terms and conditions entirely and that, whilst there may be sympathy for my circumstances, the operator was entitled to continue pursuing the charge. The adjudicator ultimately found that the parking charge had been lawfully issued.

I have now exhausted both the operator's appeal process and the IAS appeal process. The latest correspondence from the IAS advises that they can take no further action and that I should either pay the charge within 28 days or seek independent legal advice if I wish to continue contesting the matter.

I would be grateful for any views on whether there are any further grounds to challenge this charge given the circumstances, namely that I am a Type 1 diabetic, I stopped for approximately four minutes whilst experiencing symptoms of hypoglycaemia, the nearby car park was full, I followed medical and DVLA guidance, and I provided supporting medical evidence throughout the appeals process.

Gr1pr

Sorry to hear the above

You should continue fighting them, in a court claim if necessary

Meanwhile, complain about it to your local MP, in writing by email at the very least, maybe in person too

Do not pay them

Coupon-mad

You should never have tried the IAS!

It's considered a kangaroo court and is connected to the IPC trade body. Only 5% of adjudicated appeals are upheld so you had no chance with that farce!

Please paste the IAS decision into my IAS decisions thread. I'm collecting these joke decisions by anonymous 'adjudicators', You'll see that the bit about 'sympathy' is all a template!

Just ignore UKCPM as you should have done in April. IAS was pointless and you should have ignored that stage. You'll never have to pay this invoice.

Go and look at the £170 threatograms to ignore: they are in pictures in post 4 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread.

1505grandad

FYI — as per the unregulated ppss CoP (soon to be replaced by the regulated Government CoP):-

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

"Annex F

Parking operators should consider the spirit of the Appeals Charter when deciding
appeals. For example, where there is clear evidence of illness or emergency this should
be taken into account when deciding whether to uphold the appeal, offer a reduced
settlement or cancel the parking charge.

F.1 Exempt circumstances

e) a vehicle that has been driven onto controlled land due to an emergency which could
not be avoided due to the exceptional nature of an incident outside of the control of the
driver, e.g. serious illness;

F.3 Appeals where the charge should be reduced to £20 for a period of
14 days

b) where the driver or a passenger in the vehicle suffers the onset of illness, is delayed by
an overrunning medical appointment, or as a result of delay resulting from childcare
arrangements;"

Coupon-mad

Please paste the IAS decision into my IAS decisions thread. I'm collecting these joke decisions by anonymous 'adjudicators'.

And did UKCPM offer the mandatory £20 settlement?