Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

  • Qwert.
    My appeal has been declined. This is the response I had.

    Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

    The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

    "The Appellant raises a number of challenges, which I will respond to in turn.

    1a This appeal is not concerned with the failures or otherwise of the internal appeal. The Operator is a member of the IPC.

    1b In this appeal the Operator does not have to prove anything, the onus is on the Appellant. A breach of the code of practice does not automatically mean that the charge is invalid. The requirements of the code are best practice. Falling short of best practice does not mean the Appellant had insufficient notice. I can read the content of the sign the Appellant claims is unreadable and the significant terms are no different from the other signs at the site.

    2 Genuine pre-estimate of loss. Again it is not for the Operator to prove but for the Appellant. Where the claim is for breach the test to decide whether the charge is valid is to consider whether the charge is proportionate, has a tendency to deter, and is commercially justifiable. The inte ntion was clearly to deter drivers from parking beyond a period of time. When one considers the likely cost of managing checking and enforcing the site, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I find the charge proportionate, and as the Operator’s only income commercially justifiable.

    3 The Appellant has provided no evidence this sign was nearest their car.

    4 This is not relevant. The Operator contends they are bringing the charge not for overstaying but on the basis the Appellant was not a customer. This is clearly a term and the other terms on the contractual sign make it clear that by breaching this term the Appellant is liable to pay the charge.

    5 This is therefore irrelevant since I consider a contract has been formed.

    Finally I do not find the contract ambiguous and therefore the doctrine of ‘contra proferentem’ does not apply.


    As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

    As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

    The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

    Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,096Posts Today

8,735Users online

Martin's Twitter