You mean that little sign on the wall above the bins? Honestly, you're right in the town centre, slap bang on double yellows. The chances of winning an appeal on that basis are very small indeed. As a point of fact, DYLs can apply to private land - the issue isn't whether the land is private, but whether it forms part of the highway, which this clearly does. It's open access to anyone and everyone, so the DYLs would apply even if it were private, which it isn't.

It makes no difference if you missed the 14 days. An appeal is an appeal and will be considered on its merits. I would try sending an appeal - nothing to lose. I would just explain the basics - that you are not the Blue Badge holder, and that you took the holder's word on where you could park. You understood you could park if there was a single yellow, and didn't realise that a loading ban would override that concession. Genuine mistake, won't do it again, etc... You have a chance they will cancel, especially if it's your first one.

The Blue Badge holder should familiarise themselves with the regulations. There's a Blue Badge handbook which would be worth getting, and I think the link which stu007 gave is that, in an electronic form. You should be able to get a free paper copy from your Council and give it to the Blue Badge holder for future reference. A Blue Badge does not permit parking where a loading ban is in force, which is the case here. Therefore the PCN was issued legitimately, and an appeal based on not knowing the regulations is unlikely to succeed - although you might get lucky if you try - you will have to write in to them, of course. The point is, even without the loading restriction indicated by the chevrons on the kerbs, you would still have been on a single yellow line, and therefore obligated to look for signs explaining the restriction. The sign says clearly, "no loading", so the chevrons being worn is not a strong line of argument, and I doubt the Council would accept that the signs and lines are not clear enough. The PCN should have a contravention code and definition on it - I would expect it to say "02 parked or loading/unloading where a loading ban is in place". If it doesn't say that, or has a different code to 02, then you may have grounds to appeal. Let us know.

Are you for real? I've spent a good deal of my own time going over your posts and advising you, out of the kindness of my heart, and you reply to me like that. Learn some respect.

There doesn't seem much point in keeping on repeating the same thing. You are posting this on a forum about Local Authority parking, when your issue is not parking - it's a contractual dispute. You won't get any advice here - you need to ask elsewhere, to people who know about contracts.

What I meant was - the person or company named on the notices issued by the council will be legally liable for the charge. There is a process by which that person/company can transfer legal liability to someone else, under certain circumstances. However that did not happen in this case, and Zipcar's terms and conditions do not say it will. As there was no transfer, and they didn't say there would be, they have not broken ther agreement, and in this respect, have stuck to the process. My initial confusion was because you used the term "transfer", when in fact there was no transfer - Zipcar just forward you copies of their own notices, offering you a chance to deal with them.

You can argue it if you like. The counter-argument would be that the disc was not properly displayed, but just happened to be visible. The CEO has done you a favour by taking that photo. No idea who'd win it at adjudication. Let us know how you get on.

The terms of the agreement which you posted above state, "If we can, we will redirect the violation to you. If we can't redirect it, we will pay the fine, along with any late fees", which is what they appear to have done. Are the obliged to give you more than five hours? The terms say "We try to give at least 24 hours to respond to any violation notification" - which is not the same as saying they will do so. In any case, this is not a parking issue. It's a contractual dispute between you and Zipcar and so you are unlikely to get any practical advise on this thread. You would need to post on another part of the site, where people can advise on contracts.

So, the double yellows apply to the pavement as well as the road, and so the contravention is correct - restricted street. Definitely try an appeal, but brace yourself for it being refused, which is likely. I would just explain what happened like in your post 7 above, and emphasise this was a genuine error - you believed parking was allowed/tolerated on match days. You never know, you might get lucky.

Yes, they will put it on hold at the reduced rate and if they refuse the appeal, you will normally be allowed two weeks to pay the reduced rate starting from when they sent the letter. Assuming they take two weeks to reply, that's four weeks from when you write to them.

I've googled Waterside, Trafford and it's a very small bit of road between two private parking areas. There are two spaces for permit holders, the rest is double yellows. Were you on the pavement next to double yellows?

It's not 100 percent for yellow lines. There are other circumstances in which it could also be the correct contravention. It's no longer relevant that he was on the pavement, beause that's not what he was ticketed for. It just depends what the restriction was on that street. Maybe he'll come back and tell us?

Thanks for the clarification. So he wasn't served with a PCN on the vehicle? It was served by post? And he appealed, and lost the appeal, then waited for an NTO? When the NTO is issued, it affords 28 further days to appeal, so when you say it didn't arrive until the appeal time had run out, you mean to say that it took more than a month to get through the postal system? To be honest though, it's all academic. He really needed to respond to the Order for Recovery - that was his chance to address the whole thing and re-set the clock by filing the papers they sent him. Not doing so was a mistake. I don't see how this can be resolved now, other than by paying.

I don't really see there's much he can do. The timeline above is confusing: The letter was sent to them on 1st January 2018 in response to their letter dated 21/12/18. - What letter of 21/12/18, if he only wrote to them in January? Why would they write him a letter? During this time they stated that they sent my father a 'Notice to Owner' dated 15/02/2018 - that's not during this time - it's afterwards. He wrote to them on 2nd April explaining this. However in this letter they also rejected my father's appeal and a request was made to pay the lower rate of £65. - why did he write to them in April? And how did THEY reject an appeal in the letter HE wrote? The upshot is, if there has been any mix-up or cross-over in letters, the option is to file a Witness Statement when the Order For Recovery arrives. As you say, he received the forms but didn't do this, instead he opted to send yet another letter. If he doesn't follow the statutory process, he's defeated himself. The whole point of the Council sending him those forms was to give him a mechanism to challenge the charges. He belatedly paid them £65 which he could have done in the first place, but it's too late for that. I don't know how they have been inconsiderate. It appears he's opted to dig his heels in and play cat-and-mouse with letters. Sadly, this is where it will end up. You can't beat the system with magic letters, unfortunately. It looks like he will have to pay, and sooner rather than later, as they will instruct bailiffs otherwise and add even more charges on. Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

? Anyone can appeal a parking ticket. You don't need to be the owner. The question is whether there is any realistic chance of winning the appeal. On the fact of it, the PCN was for yellow lines. We would need to know if there were yellow lines on the roadside, and if they were in force at the time.

OK, I think I get it, but you are confusing things by talkng about the charge being "transferred" to you. As I understand from your posts, it has never been transferred to you, it's just that Zipcar advise they will tell you it exists and let you handle it, ie you can appeal or pay, although legally, they will remain liable as it's issued to them, with their name printed on. This does not constitute a transfer of liability, which is a different thing. So it comes back to you vs Zipcar - nothing to do with the Council. From what you have given above, Zipcar would send you details, and invite you to appeal or pay, "if they can". Did they do what was expected of them under the above agreement? And did you? You mentioned before that Zipcar would give you five days to tell them what you intended to do. Did they? It all boils down to a contractual dispute between you and Zipcar. It was legally their charge, and they can pay if they wish. It's how they handle their obligations to you which is important here. I would add that Zipcar's terms above sound as if they do not understand the appeals process, as only the person named on the Notice to Owner can lodge an appeal. Even if you had appealed, it would likely have been rejected as you weren't liable legally in the first place - they were. They would need to lodge any appeal on your behalf, and sign it themselves as if it had come from them.

Yeah, she's within her rights to park awkwardly. It looks like a tight squeeze to get three cars in. Probably why she was being unco-operative, but really, there's nothing you could do.

If a long bay is divided into individual car lengths with broken white lines, then a driver parking over one of those lines means he's occupying two separate bays and liable for a PCN. If it isn't divided up, and is just one long length, then any car can park in any position within the bay. Anti-social people or people who have a bug about cars parking close to them, can deliberately occupy a space which might be long enough to accommodate two cars, but there's no rule prohibiting it. As for your own predicament, you have to fit all of your car inside the bay, or you are overhanging and liable for a PCN yourself. You just can't park there and will have to go somewhere else. The other driver sounds like a pretty unpleasant person, but he's within his rights.

Your post doesn't make much sense. Did the Council issue you - that's you personally, nothing to do with Zipcar - did they issue you with a Notice to Owner? If so, did Zipcar pay it on your behalf? If you haven't had a Notice to Owner sent to you personally by the Council, can you explain the first part - "Zipcar complete the initial notice to owner and transfer the fine to the driver of the vehicle at the time. From then on, the council directly contact you as the driver for payment."

The dispute is between you and Zipcar. The council have not asked you for anything, so there's nothing for you to appeal. Are Zipcar entitled to charge you under these circumstances? As Renegadeimp says, check your contract with them.

These things don't tend to work on legalities, so much as guidance from adjudicators, who issue reports to Councils, steering them on how to deal with matters when they arise. It's guidance, not binding rules, but Councils tend to follow as if they were rules, as they just co-operate with adjudicators normally. I think you can cite the principle of proportionality. That is, the Council should not be applying a disporportionate penalty, and this has been established at adjudication many times. If a PCN is £80 and you get five, that's £400 - which is more than you would be fined for something much more serious, eg assault. I am sceptical about your explanation, and I think the council will be too. If you try a garage and they can't tow it, you go straight to the next garage to enquire, then the next, or you call on a mate etc. You don't just leave it there day after day. I personally don't think the council will accept that as justification, so maybe have a think about what you tell them. If you are going to appeal on proportionality, and / or that only one contravention occurred, then you don't necessarily have to go into too much detail about the whys and wherefores. I would also check with the Council that you have all the PCNs listed - there could be one of more which you don't know about (you said you have five, but over nine days). You need to cite all of them in the appeal - if you left one out, it wouldn't be considered and may then escalate. In any case, be clear to ask that only the first PCN be charged and the rest cancelled. That's what I would expect them to do - just enforce the first one. If and when that is secure you can set about appealing that one, because of the breakdown, but I would do things in that order. Obviously if you get to that stage, the delay in removing the vehicle is unimportant because you're only dealing with day 1. Please post your appeal up here before you send it, so someone can check it says the right things.

I would be happy if they take their time about it. Are you really in a rush to get a charge to pay? Whether they accept your appeal or not, you can post here for advice if you provide some details. You may get a human response from them, but it's important you appeal in the right way - don't assume they are your enemy, or it will count against you.

Private parking charges like this are almost completely unenforceable - the have no real way of making you pay, and they know it. Please don't give them £20 of your money. Don't give them anything. There is a very small number of cases where they do take people to court, but I understand they expect to lose, and do it only because the small possibility of that tends to make people worry and pay up. There is a separate section of this site for private charges, where you will read countless more cases like your own.

First question - is this a PCN issued by a Council, or is it from a private company? It sounds like the latter, in which case the process is different - so please could you check and let us know. Second - who is this 'judge'? Have you been sued by someone and been to court? Is it in fact that you went to a tribunal hearing to contest the charge? (If so, it wasn't a judge.)

TRO = Traffic Regulation Order. If you ask the council for a copy of the TRO governing the spot where you parked, they shouldn't have any problem providing you with one. I can see your predicament, but I have to be honest and say none of that will get you the PCN cancelled, let alone freedom to park there in future. You have to go by what the restriction is, however difficult that makes things - although you can of course lobby the Council separately to see if they will consider changing it. Have you explored other options, eg you can use yellow lines for unloading, so long as it is continuous.