03-04-2026, 09:19 PM
Understood. In the meantime, here is a draft IAS appeal you can try and work on:
Quote:Independent Appeals Service Appeal
Appellant: Registered Keeper
The Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned. The identity of the driver has not been provided and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The Operator is therefore required to establish liability strictly in accordance with the law and is put to strict proof of every element of its claim.
1. Preliminary evidential position
The Operator asserts that a parking charge of £100 is payable. In any civil claim the party asserting liability bears the burden of proof. The Operator must therefore demonstrate:
- that clear contractual terms were prominently displayed at the location;
- that those terms constituted a contractual offer capable of acceptance;
- that the driver accepted those terms;
- that the Operator has the legal standing required to enforce those terms; and
- that the circumstances relied upon fall within the scope of those terms.
If any one of these elements is not established, liability cannot arise.
2. Requirement for reasoned determination
This appeal raises specific questions of contractual formation, standing, implied licence and necessity. Determination of the appeal therefore requires an examination of whether the Operator has discharged the evidential burden necessary to establish liability.
A determination that merely repeats the Operator’s assertions or relies solely on photographs of a stationary vehicle would not address the legal issues raised in this appeal.
The determination must therefore explain:
- whether the signage relied upon constitutes a contractual offer or merely a prohibition;
- whether the Operator has standing to pursue any alleged breach in its own name;
- whether vehicles attending a tenant’s premises operate under an implied licence; and
- whether a stop compelled by vehicle safety concerns can reasonably be characterised as “parking”.
Unless these issues are examined and resolved, the Operator’s claim cannot be sustained.
3. Requirement for evidential proof
The Operator’s case appears to rely primarily on photographs showing a vehicle stationary for a period of time. Photographs of a stationary vehicle do not establish the existence of a contractual agreement or breach of contractual terms.
The Operator must demonstrate:
- that the signage at the site was clear, prominent and capable of forming a contractual offer;
- that the terms relied upon applied to vehicles attending the commercial premises on the site;
- that the Operator has the legal authority from the landholder to enforce those terms; and
- that the circumstances of this stop fall within the scope of those terms.
If the Operator cannot establish those matters with evidence, the mere presence of a vehicle cannot create liability.
4. Failure of contractual formation
The signage relied upon by the Operator is prohibitive in nature. Language such as “No Parking” or similar wording withdraws permission rather than offering a contractual licence on defined terms.
Contract law requires an offer capable of acceptance. A prohibition is not an offer. Where signage merely forbids parking, no contract can arise between the operator and a driver.
In those circumstances the only theoretical cause of action would be trespass. A claim in trespass may only be brought by a party with sufficient proprietary interest in the land. A parking operator acting as an enforcement contractor cannot pursue damages for trespass in its own name.
Furthermore, damages for trespass are compensatory and must reflect the landowner’s actual loss. They cannot be a fixed contractual sum such as £100.
The Operator is therefore required to demonstrate that the signage constituted a genuine contractual offer rather than a prohibition.
5. Commercial access and implied licence
The location concerned is an access road serving Oakleaf Recycling, a business operating from Oak Leaf Farm. A commercial enterprise necessarily carries with it an implied licence permitting customers, suppliers and contractors to access the premises for legitimate business purposes.
Delivery vehicles and contractors must be able to enter and exit the site in order for the business to function. Vehicles attending the premises in the course of commercial activity are therefore operating under that implied licence.
The vehicle concerned was attending the site in the course of legitimate commercial operations.
The Operator must therefore demonstrate how a third-party parking enforcement scheme can extinguish or override the ordinary implied licence enjoyed by suppliers attending the tenant’s premises.
Unless clear contractual terms overriding that licence were prominently displayed and capable of binding those attending the site for business purposes, the Operator’s claim cannot succeed.
6. Necessity arising from mechanical defect
The vehicle developed a defect affecting its lighting system. This rendered the vehicle unsafe and potentially unlawful to continue operating on the public highway.
Drivers are under a legal obligation not to operate vehicles that are unsafe or unroadworthy. The driver therefore had no lawful option other than to interrupt the journey.
The vehicle was subsequently taken to a Scania repair facility located a short distance away and documentary evidence of the repair was provided to the Operator.
The stop was therefore not discretionary parking but a safety-driven interruption of the journey compelled by the vehicle’s condition.
Contract law does not require a party to expose themselves to illegality or danger in order to avoid a private parking charge. If compliance with the alleged contractual term would have required the driver to continue operating an unsafe vehicle on the highway, such a term cannot reasonably be enforced in these circumstances.
7. Operator standing
The Operator is put to strict proof that it possesses the legal authority required to issue and enforce parking charges at this location.
A parking operator acting as a contractor must demonstrate that it has been granted the necessary rights by the landholder to enter into contracts with motorists and to pursue parking charges in its own name.
Absent such authority, the Operator has no standing to pursue this charge.
8. Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis
Parking operators frequently rely on the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
That case concerned a retail car park where the operator had a legitimate interest in controlling parking duration in order to ensure customer turnover.
The present case concerns an industrial access road serving commercial premises. The presence of delivery vehicles and contractors is an inherent and necessary feature of such a location.
Penalising a delivery vehicle attending a tenant’s premises and dealing with a vehicle defect bears no resemblance to the circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in Beavis.
The Operator is therefore required to explain what legitimate interest is served by imposing a £100 charge on a vehicle engaged in commercial activity on a business access road.
9. Failure to properly consider evidence
Evidence explaining the vehicle defect and subsequent repair was provided to the Operator during the initial appeal.
The rejection notice does not address this evidence in any meaningful way and instead simply asserts that the charge remains payable.
Ignoring relevant evidence does not establish liability.
Conclusion
The Operator has failed to demonstrate that a contractual agreement capable of giving rise to a £100 charge was formed.
The vehicle was attending a commercial tenant under an implied licence and was compelled to stop due to a mechanical defect which made continued operation unsafe.
For these reasons the Operator has not discharged the evidential burden necessary to establish liability and the charge cannot be sustained.
The appeal should therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
