03-26-2026, 10:16 AM
The operator uploaded their response to my appeal. I was expecting an 'evidence pack' containing their original version of the Notice to Keeper, a copy of my appeal, pictures of their signage etc unless they only provide that to the assessor maybe. But their response said this:
"Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 25/03/2026 10:03:28.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/02/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 03/02/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The Operator respectfully submits that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.
The contemporaneous photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that the vehicle remained stationary on a restricted private access roadway for a continuous period of approximately 39 minutes. This was not a momentary stop or transient presence but a prolonged stationary period in an area where such conduct is expressly prohibited by prominently displayed signage. The duration alone evidences that the vehicle was “standing” on the access roadway in clear breach of the site restrictions.
It is also relevant that the Appellant's account of events has materially changed. In the initial appeal, it was asserted that the vehicle was moving at the time of the alleged event. This position is directly contradicted by the operator's photographic record, which shows the vehicle stationary throughout the material period. Only at a later stage was an alternative explanation advanced, namely that the vehicle was subject to a mechanical issue. This inconsistency significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's account.
The reliance on an alleged mechanical defect is unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was immobilised or incapable of being moved to a different location. The repair documentation merely confirms attendance at a repair facility at a later time and does not establish that the vehicle could not have been repositioned during the relevant period. A lighting defect does not, in itself, prevent a vehicle from being moved safely away from a restricted access roadway.
The assertions regarding statutory necessity, frustration of contract, and emergency exemption are therefore misplaced. Any such exemption applies only where the presence of the vehicle is unavoidable and only for the minimum duration necessary. On the evidence available, that threshold is not met.
The suggestion that a site occupier instructed the driver to remain is also without merit. The landholder has expressly informed all occupiers that vehicles must not park or remain stationary on the access roadway. This restriction forms part of the wider site controls, including planning requirements which prohibit vehicles from “standing” on the access roads. A third-party occupier has no authority to override or vary those restrictions, and any such instruction cannot displace the contractual terms in force.
For completeness, it is noted that the Appellant has been involved in previous similar matters at this location and appears to advance a recurring position that such restrictions are not enforceable. Previous charges were cancelled on a discretionary basis due to earlier limitations in camera positioning which did not capture the full duration of events. That issue has since been rectified, and the enforcement equipment now records a complete sequence of the vehicle's presence, as demonstrated in this case.
Finally, the Operator notes that the Appellant's representations demonstrate a pattern of challenging enforcement despite clear and repeated breaches of the site terms. This location comprises a single vehicle access roadway serving multiple commercial units. By remaining stationary on that roadway for approximately 39 minutes, the vehicle created an obstruction and interfered with the safe and efficient use of the access route by other authorised users. The restrictions are in place for legitimate operational and safety reasons and must be adhered to.
In summary, the evidence demonstrates a clear and prolonged breach of the site restrictions, the Appellant's account is inconsistent and unsupported, and no valid exemption applies. The charge was therefore issued correctly and remains enforceable."
Any advice on how to respond? I note that their comment "Appellant's account of events has materially changed" is a mischaracterisation, as the account hasn't changed, telematics show the vehicle was moving at the time of issue stated on the Notice, that never changed, I just provided further information as to why the vehicle had been stationary prior.
"Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 25/03/2026 10:03:28.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/02/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 03/02/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The Operator respectfully submits that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.
The contemporaneous photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that the vehicle remained stationary on a restricted private access roadway for a continuous period of approximately 39 minutes. This was not a momentary stop or transient presence but a prolonged stationary period in an area where such conduct is expressly prohibited by prominently displayed signage. The duration alone evidences that the vehicle was “standing” on the access roadway in clear breach of the site restrictions.
It is also relevant that the Appellant's account of events has materially changed. In the initial appeal, it was asserted that the vehicle was moving at the time of the alleged event. This position is directly contradicted by the operator's photographic record, which shows the vehicle stationary throughout the material period. Only at a later stage was an alternative explanation advanced, namely that the vehicle was subject to a mechanical issue. This inconsistency significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's account.
The reliance on an alleged mechanical defect is unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was immobilised or incapable of being moved to a different location. The repair documentation merely confirms attendance at a repair facility at a later time and does not establish that the vehicle could not have been repositioned during the relevant period. A lighting defect does not, in itself, prevent a vehicle from being moved safely away from a restricted access roadway.
The assertions regarding statutory necessity, frustration of contract, and emergency exemption are therefore misplaced. Any such exemption applies only where the presence of the vehicle is unavoidable and only for the minimum duration necessary. On the evidence available, that threshold is not met.
The suggestion that a site occupier instructed the driver to remain is also without merit. The landholder has expressly informed all occupiers that vehicles must not park or remain stationary on the access roadway. This restriction forms part of the wider site controls, including planning requirements which prohibit vehicles from “standing” on the access roads. A third-party occupier has no authority to override or vary those restrictions, and any such instruction cannot displace the contractual terms in force.
For completeness, it is noted that the Appellant has been involved in previous similar matters at this location and appears to advance a recurring position that such restrictions are not enforceable. Previous charges were cancelled on a discretionary basis due to earlier limitations in camera positioning which did not capture the full duration of events. That issue has since been rectified, and the enforcement equipment now records a complete sequence of the vehicle's presence, as demonstrated in this case.
Finally, the Operator notes that the Appellant's representations demonstrate a pattern of challenging enforcement despite clear and repeated breaches of the site terms. This location comprises a single vehicle access roadway serving multiple commercial units. By remaining stationary on that roadway for approximately 39 minutes, the vehicle created an obstruction and interfered with the safe and efficient use of the access route by other authorised users. The restrictions are in place for legitimate operational and safety reasons and must be adhered to.
In summary, the evidence demonstrates a clear and prolonged breach of the site restrictions, the Appellant's account is inconsistent and unsupported, and no valid exemption applies. The charge was therefore issued correctly and remains enforceable."
Any advice on how to respond? I note that their comment "Appellant's account of events has materially changed" is a mischaracterisation, as the account hasn't changed, telematics show the vehicle was moving at the time of issue stated on the Notice, that never changed, I just provided further information as to why the vehicle had been stationary prior.
