10-13-2026, 06:47 PM
As you predicted @b789:-
Dear ,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued: 12/07/2026
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator’s role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator maintains that the Appellant exceeded their paid purchase time.
The Appellant raises a number of issues:
1. The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the appeal is not allowed on this basis.
2. The Operator need provide no information. Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator.
3. A number of images have been provided to me which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. It is not lost on me the driver entered the site, chose to park and proceeded to make payment in accordance with the advertised terms. This demonstrates that the driver was able to locate and engage with the parking terms and conditions.
4. Parking is defined as “remaining on controlled land” by the single code of practice. This is evidenced by the ANPR images which show the vehicle parking between07:50:06 and 10:23:51.
5. The consideration period is not a additional free parking. It does not form part of the overstay. The vehicle remained on site between expiry of payment (09:52:00) and payment (10:23:51). This overstay exceeds the 10 minute grace period afforded.
I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms and conditions clear to all motorists. The Appellant's vehicle parked on site and a payment was made in line with the terms and conditions. The driver has therefore engaged with the signage and terms and conditions within. The Appellant informs me that the payment was made by RingGo, which is supported by the Operator's subsequent evidence and therefore is aware of how payment on site is made. If more time was needed, then a further payment was required.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"
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.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Dear ,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued: 12/07/2026
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator’s role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator maintains that the Appellant exceeded their paid purchase time.
The Appellant raises a number of issues:
1. The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the appeal is not allowed on this basis.
2. The Operator need provide no information. Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator.
3. A number of images have been provided to me which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. It is not lost on me the driver entered the site, chose to park and proceeded to make payment in accordance with the advertised terms. This demonstrates that the driver was able to locate and engage with the parking terms and conditions.
4. Parking is defined as “remaining on controlled land” by the single code of practice. This is evidenced by the ANPR images which show the vehicle parking between07:50:06 and 10:23:51.
5. The consideration period is not a additional free parking. It does not form part of the overstay. The vehicle remained on site between expiry of payment (09:52:00) and payment (10:23:51). This overstay exceeds the 10 minute grace period afforded.
I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms and conditions clear to all motorists. The Appellant's vehicle parked on site and a payment was made in line with the terms and conditions. The driver has therefore engaged with the signage and terms and conditions within. The Appellant informs me that the payment was made by RingGo, which is supported by the Operator's subsequent evidence and therefore is aware of how payment on site is made. If more time was needed, then a further payment was required.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"
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.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
