Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: alexB on June 12, 2026, 03:14:09 pm
-
Thank you I have responded with this.
But i have looked at their evidence as they have confirmed the sign was "mounted on a wooden fence." And it's actually a Joke that they can confirm this when their own evidence says otherwise!
(https://i.ibb.co/0VrQYtbs/Screenshot-2026-07-13-165919.png) (http://[url=https://ibb.co/x863zHTF)]
-
Respond with the following;
UK CPM have not addressed the primacy of contract issue.
My tenancy agreement DIRECTLY provides me with the right to park my car on the land in question - there is nothing in my agreement which requires me to agree to or abide by any third party parking schemes.
The operator contends that I have breached the terms of the agreement which they allege exists between UK CPM and myself - that breach being 'that I failed to park wholly in a marked bay'.
My contention is, that in order to breach the terms of a contract, a contract must exist in the first instance - UK CPM appear to contend that each time I enter the land, I form a contract with them and agree to abide by its terms - my contention is, that I have never formed any contract with UK CPM on the grounds that I do not need to form such a contract because my right to park already exists due to my tenancy agreement and that this right to park is not subject to any further conditions - this is known as 'primacy of contract'.
The parking operators evidence is therefore meaningless since I do not have and have never had any contract with them - their whole case and all their evidence is based on a contract which has never existed.
Parking a car on the land does not demonstrate the formation of a contract with UK CPM when my right to park said car comes from a previously negotiated contract.
How does UK CPM plan on demonstrating that I have a contract with them?
The parking operators comments on the signage are of no relevance because I do not need to additionally agree to their contract terms on each visit to a car park where I already have the right to park.
Why would I form a contract with a third party parking operator (a contract which simply gives them the right to issue £100 speculative invoices) when I do not need to?
Why doesn't UK CPM answer this simple question?
-
Can I add that the image taken of the sign used to issue the pcn, is a lose sign that is leaned up against the wall on top of a bin, that sign was not there before i parked my vehicle or after the PCN was issued. How can they issue a pcn based on a sign that is not permanently fixed! I really don't want them to win this, it is unfair and illegal that they are using non fixed sign to issue a PCN.
-
This is what they have responded:
UK CPM does not accept the appellant's assertions. The evidence submitted includes a site plan identifying the locations of the contractual signage together with photographs of the signs in situ. These signs are positioned throughout the development to ensure motorists are provided with reasonable notice of the parking terms and conditions before leaving their vehicles. The appellant has produced an annotated site plan based upon their own observations; however, this does not demonstrate that the signage relied upon by UK CPM was absent on the material date.
The appellant submits that UK CPM has not identified the specific sign nearest to the vehicle or measured the distance between the vehicle and that sign. UK CPM respectfully submits that there is no requirement for an operator to demonstrate the precise distance from every parked vehicle to the nearest sign. The relevant consideration is whether the signage, when viewed as a whole across the development, is sufficient to bring the parking terms and conditions to the attention of motorists. UK CPM maintains that it is.
The appellant also refers to an alleged absence of an entrance sign and contends that certain signs shown on the site plan were missing. UK CPM notes these assertions; however, they remain unsupported by any independent evidence demonstrating that the contractual signage relied upon was not present on the date of the parking event. Even if individual signs were temporarily absent or unavailable, this would not establish that the site as a whole lacked adequate contractual signage where numerous other signs remained in place throughout the development.
The appellant further states that one of the signs shown in UK CPM's photographic evidence was leaning against a wooden structure rather than permanently affixed. UK CPM submits that the manner in which a sign is mounted does not, in itself, determine whether it is capable of conveying contractual terms. The relevant issue is whether the sign was visible and legible to motorists using the site. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the wording of the sign was clear and readable. The appellant has provided no evidence to suggest that the sign had been moved from its intended location or that it was obscured or incapable of being read. Furthermore, we can confirm the sign is mounted on a wooden fence.
The appellant refers to a previous Parking Charge Notice and previous concerns regarding enforcement at the site.
As previously stated, each Parking Charge Notice is considered on its own individual facts. Allegations concerning previous enforcement activity or unrelated Parking Charge Notices have no bearing upon whether the parking terms and conditions were complied with on this occasion.
The appellant also states that they are a resident and held a valid electronic permit. UK CPM does not dispute that the appellant was a resident or that an e-permit had been issued. However, possession of a permit does not provide an unrestricted right to park irrespective of the site's parking conditions. The permit authorises parking only where the terms and conditions displayed on site are complied with. Residents remain subject to the parking scheme implemented by the landowner or managing agent, and compliance with the applicable restrictions remains a condition of parking.
The appellant further relies upon the terms of their tenancy agreement and submits that it does not require compliance with UK CPM's parking scheme. UK CPM is not a party to the appellant's tenancy agreement and cannot comment upon the contractual relationship between the appellant and their landlord. The Parking Charge Notice has not been issued under the tenancy agreement but under the separate parking terms displayed on private land. The issue for the Independent Adjudicator is whether the vehicle was parked in accordance with those displayed terms and conditions at the material time.
The appellant also refers to correspondence with Hyde Housing and states that Hyde confirmed there was no separate parking agreement between tenants and UK CPM. UK CPM respectfully submits that this correspondence is not determinative of the issues in this appeal. UK CPM operates the parking management scheme under the authority of the landowner or its appointed managing agent. Motorists parking on the land are subject to the parking terms displayed on the signage regardless of whether they have entered into any separate agreement directly with UK CPM.
Finally, the appellant asserts that UK CPM has failed to address the substance of their appeal.
UK CPM respectfully disagrees. The appellant's representations have been carefully considered, and the evidence submitted has been reviewed in full. However, the appellant's submissions do not demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly. UK CPM maintains that the signage at the site was sufficient to communicate the parking terms and conditions, that the parking scheme was clearly in operation, and that the Parking Charge Notice was issued following a breach of those terms.
Accordingly, UK CPM respectfully submits that the appellant has not provided any evidence capable of invalidating the Parking Charge Notice and requests that the Independent Adjudicator dismiss the appeal.
-
I would point out clearly and concisely that, in law, there is no requirement for you to form a contract with the operator when your tenancy agreement already provides you with the right to park - therefore, technically, every single one of the operator's evidence points are totally irrelevant because I simply do not have a legally binding contract with them in a circumstance where I already have the right to park.
-
can i also add that actually i received the exact same PCN two days later after this one and i appealed exactly the same and the other one got cancelled.
I find this so frustrating and annoying!!
How can you cancel one and reject the other one for the exact same offence and evidence!
-
Thank you i have responded with this:
1. Signage
The operator states that "there is clear signage throughout the development" and that I was "within clear view of our sign."
I do not accept this assertion.
The operator has not identified the specific sign upon which they rely, nor have they demonstrated:
• the distance between my vehicle and that sign;
• that the sign was visible from the driver's position before parking;
• that there was an unobstructed line of sight; or
• that the sign could reasonably be read before any alleged contract was formed.
My annotated site plan demonstrates that numerous signs shown on the operator's layout were not present on the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, there is no entrance sign when entering this section of the estate, and the nearest remaining sign is approximately 120 metres from where my vehicle was parked.
The operator dismisses my evidence as "my own assessment" but provides no contemporaneous evidence to show that the missing signs were in fact present.
Additionally, the Civil Enforcement Officer's own photographs show that the sign relied upon is not permanently affixed. It appears to be leaning against the bin storage area rather than securely mounted. A sign that is not permanently installed cannot reasonably be relied upon as fixed contractual signage, as it is capable of being moved or repositioned at any time.
The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that the alleged contractual terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists.
________________________________________
2. Missing Signs and Previous PCN
The operator states that a previous Parking Charge Notice is irrelevant.
I agree that each case should be considered on its own merits.
However, my reference to the previous Parking Charge Notice was not relied upon as evidence that this charge should automatically be cancelled. It was raised because it demonstrates that there have been previous concerns regarding enforcement at this location.
The important issue is that my annotated site plan identifies numerous signs that are no longer present. The operator has not rebutted this evidence with dated photographs showing that those signs existed on the material date.
________________________________________
3. Resident Permit
The operator accepts that:
• I am a resident; and
• I held a valid electronic resident permit.
This confirms that I was authorised to park on the estate.
The operator states that a permit is subject to compliance with the site's parking terms.
However, the operator has produced no evidence that these terms were adequately communicated at the location where my vehicle was parked.
________________________________________
4. Tenancy Agreement
The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice is not based on my tenancy agreement.
This misses the point.
My tenancy agreement governs my rights as a resident.
The tenancy agreement grants me the right to park and does not require me to display a permit or comply with UK Car Park Management Ltd's parking scheme. It contains no provision permitting UKCPM to impose additional contractual obligations or financial penalties upon residents.
Accordingly, my tenancy agreement takes precedence over any subsequently introduced parking terms. The operator cannot unilaterally override my existing contractual rights by placing signs around the estate.
As my right to park arises from my tenancy and not from any contract offered by UKCPM, the parking terms relied upon by the operator are irrelevant and do not apply to my existing rights as a resident.
________________________________________
5. Hyde Housing
The operator states that my correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect their authority.
This is not the point I raised.
I contacted Hyde to establish whether tenants had entered into any parking agreement incorporating UKCPM's parking terms.
Hyde confirmed that there is no such agreement with tenants.
The operator has therefore produced no evidence that residents have contractually agreed to be bound by UKCPM's parking terms beyond whatever lawful rights already exist under their tenancy agreements.
________________________________________
6. Appeal Response
The operator states that all my representations have now been considered.
However, their response still fails to address the substance of my appeal.
The operator has not produced evidence demonstrating:
• that the nearest sign was visible from where I parked;
• that the sign was permanently installed;
• that an entrance sign existed;
• that the missing signs identified in my evidence were actually present;
• that the location where I parked was clearly identified as being subject to the alleged restriction.
Instead, the operator relies upon general statements that signage exists throughout the development.
General assertions are not evidence.
-
As I posted, you need to be explicit in rebutting the points made by the operator. Numbered 1-6.
-
do you think this is okay:
- The operator states that I parked "within clear view of our sign". However, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate:
which specific sign they rely upon;
the distance between that sign and my vehicle;
that the sign was clearly visible from the driver's position before parking; or
that the sign was capable of being read before any alleged contract was formed.
Instead, the operator makes a general assertion that signage exists throughout the development. This is insufficient to establish that the specific contractual terms were effectively communicated at the location where my vehicle was parked.
- The Civil Enforcement Officer's own photographs show that the sign relied upon is not permanently affixed to a post, wall or other structure. Instead, it appears to be leaning against the bin storage area.
A sign that is simply propped against a structure cannot reasonably be relied upon as permanent contractual signage. It is capable of being moved, repositioned or removed at any time.
This directly contradicts the operator's assertion that there was clear and adequate signage throughout the site.
I explained in my appeal that there is no entrance sign when entering this section of the residential development.
- The operator has not addressed this point or produced any evidence of an entrance sign.
Instead, they simply state that signage exists throughout the development. That does not establish that motorists were given adequate notice of the parking terms before parking.
- I supplied an annotated site plan showing that several signs shown on the operator's layout have been removed.
The operator dismisses this as "my own assessment" but has not produced contemporaneous photographs proving those signs were actually present on the date of the alleged contravention.
If the operator relies upon a site plan, it must accurately reflect the signage that existed on the material date.
-The operator has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that:
the contractual terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention;
the sign relied upon was permanently installed and prominently positioned;
there was appropriate entrance signage;
the signage shown on their site plan accurately reflected the signage present on the date of the alleged contravention; or
a legally binding parking contract incorporating the alleged restriction was formed.
Given these deficiencies, I respectfully request that the Independent Appeals Service allows this appeal and directs UK Car Park Management Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
You need to rebut any of their points you disagree with, or else it may be assumed that you agree with them. You don’t need to go overboard, just state the point and why you disagree.
EG 4. Tenancy Agreement gives you a right to park without the requirement to display a permit (assuming this to be the case) and therefore the parking terms imposed by CPM are irrelevant and not applicable.
-
This is what CPM has replied with: "The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 08/05/2026.
The ticket was issued on 07/05/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has parked outside of a designated parking area/parking bay.
The appellant has parked within clear view of our sign and there is clear signage throughout the car park. This can be seen in the attached document ‘50977400'.
Signage clearly states "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY. NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS / YELLOW LINES / PAVED / HATCHED OR LANDSCAPED AREAS".
It is the driver's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is parked within a designated parking area/bay, prior to parking within a restricted area.
1. Signage
The appellant states that there was no entrance signage or nearby contractual signage and that the nearest sign was approximately 120 metres away. We do not accept that the signage at the site is inadequate. Signage is displayed throughout the development to communicate the parking terms and conditions, including the requirement to park wholly within a marked bay. The appellant's annotated site plan reflects their own assessment and does not demonstrate that the terms were incapable of being brought to motorists' attention.
2. Missing signs and previous PCN
The appellant refers to missing signs and a previously cancelled Parking Charge Notice. Each Parking Charge Notice is assessed on its own merits, and a previous cancellation has no bearing on this case. The appellant has not shown that the signage present on the date of the contravention was insufficient to communicate the parking terms.
3. Resident permit
We acknowledge that the appellant is a resident and held a valid electronic permit. However, a permit authorises parking subject to compliance with the site's parking terms. The Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay, not because it was unauthorised.
4. Tenancy agreement
The appellant states that their tenancy agreement does not require parking within marked bays. The Parking Charge Notice is issued under the parking terms applicable to the private land and is not based on the tenancy agreement.
5. Hyde Housing
The appellant's correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect the operator's authority to manage parking at the site or the requirement for motorists to comply with the displayed parking terms.
6. Appeal response
While the initial rejection focused on the reason for issue, all of the appellant's representations have now been fully considered. None of the points raised demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice."
What should I reply with or should i submit straight to the Adjudicator?
-
This is what I said: "Exhibit A - Annotated site plan showing the missing signs.
Exhibit B - Screenshot of valid Sippi e-permit.
Exhibit C - Entrance to access parking (Image taken 16/02/2026)
I respectfully request that the Independent Appeals Service allow this appeal and direct UK Car Park Management Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
The operator has failed to establish that any contractual liability exists for the following reasons.
1. The operator alleges that my vehicle was "not parked fully within a marked bay."
For such a contractual term to be enforceable, UKCPM must demonstrate that the driver was given clear and adequate notice of the relevant parking terms before any contract was formed.
This has not been demonstrated.
The location where my vehicle was parked had:
- no entrance signage;
- no nearby contractual signage;
- no visible notice advising motorists that parking outside marked bays would incur a £100 parking charge.
I have produced an annotated site plan identifying the operator's signage.
This plan also identifies numerous signs shown on the operator's site plan that are no longer present.
The nearest remaining sign is approximately over 120 metres from where my vehicle was parked.
At approximately 03:14 hours, it cannot reasonably be suggested that a driver parking in this location would leave their vehicle and walk over one hundred metres in darkness to locate and read contractual terms.
Accordingly, the operator has failed to establish that any parking contract was capable of being formed.
The operator has also previously cancelled a PCN and accepting their mistake when their enforcing officer used a sign that was on floor, near the communal bin area, behind a bush to issue the same vehicle in question a PCN. Evidence of this can be provided at the adjudicators request. This demonstrate their lack of unreliability in the signs they use to issue PCN's.
2. My annotated site plan demonstrates that a significant number of signs shown on the operator's layout have been removed.
Should the operator rely upon its generic site plan, I respectfully submit that it does not accurately represent the signage that existed on the date of the alleged contravention.
The burden rests upon the operator to prove that adequate contractual signage existed where my vehicle was parked.
It is not sufficient to rely upon historic plans if those signs were absent on the material date.
Having the signage map with all the missing signage marked, CPM would need to prove that the sign their enforcing officer used was within a reasonable distance from the vehicle and was not a sign outside of their mapped signs as they have previously used to unfairly issue PCN's.
In the evidence provided my CPM of the sign, the sign is clearly resting on the floor against a wooden plank, held on by a strip of transparent Sellotape.
3. I am not a visitor or an unauthorised motorist.
I am a resident of the development and was parked outside my own home.
I held a valid electronic resident permit through the Sippi permit system at the time of the alleged contravention.
Evidence of my valid permit is attached.
The operator has produced no evidence that my vehicle was not authorised to be on the estate.
Instead, it simply alleges that the vehicle was not within a marked bay.
4. I have reviewed my tenancy agreement.
It contains no provision requiring residents:
- to park only within marked bays;
- to comply with UKCPM's contractual terms;
- to pay £100 parking charges.
The operator has therefore failed to establish any contractual basis by which it may override my existing rights as a resident.
Should the operator assert otherwise, I require strict proof.
6. I have contacted Hyde Housing regarding parking arrangements.
Hyde has confirmed that there is no parking agreement between Hyde and tenants incorporating UKCPM's parking terms.
This further supports that no contractual obligation exists between myself and UKCPM beyond whatever contractual terms were adequately communicated by signage.
Given the absence of adequate signage, no such contract was capable of being formed.
7. The operator's rejection letter merely states:
"the vehicle was not parked fully within a bay."
It does not address any of the substantive issues raised in my appeal, including:
- inadequate signage;
- missing signs;
- absence of nearby contractual notices;
- my status as an authorised resident;
- my valid electronic permit;
- the lack of contractual parking terms within my tenancy.
Instead, the rejection is a standard template that simply repeats the alleged contravention without addressing the evidence submitted."
-
Help guys?
With what? Once you show us a draft of your proposed IAS appeal we can advise. You will want to include your signage map and photos to back this up showing there are no signs where claimed.
-
Help guys?
-
Any update?
-
Hi guys,
I have attached the image of the signage map they sent to me in Nov 2025. I have crossed out all the signs that were not there in blue and highlighted where my car was parked with a white cross and purple square. Hopefully this helps in anyway.
(https://ibb.co/CsVC7cDb)https://ibb.co/CsVC7cDb (https://ibb.co/CsVC7cDb)
-
My appeal;
The registered keeper of the above vehicle writes to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice referenced above. No contract was formed with the driver on the date in question. There was no clear or visible signage at the entrance to the land to indicate that it was private property subject to parking terms and conditions. In the absence of prominent entrance signage, the driver was not given reasonable notice of any contractual terms prior to parking. Furthermore, the signage relied upon in your photographic evidence appears not to be permanently affixed and is shown merely leaning against the communal wooden bin area. The registered keeper has since inspected the location and confirms that the sign was not present at the time the vehicle was parked and is not currently present at the site. The fact that the sign was not fixed in place and is not ordinarily present raises serious concerns regarding its legitimacy, permanence, and whether it was genuinely installed as part of a compliant signage scheme. The temporary nature of the sign as shown in your evidence gives rise to concern that it may have been positioned solely for enforcement purposes at the time the PCN was issued. This matter will be formally raised with the land managing agents, namely SIPPI Ltd and The Hyde Group, who are understood to have responsibility for the land in question. Given that: * There was no clear entrance signage, * The alleged terms were not prominently displayed, * The sign shown is not permanently installed, * The sign was not present at the time of parking and is not present now, * The incident occurred during hours of darkness (approximately 03:14), further reducing visibility, it is denied that any contractual agreement was entered into by the driver. In the absence of clear, prominent, and properly installed signage capable of forming a legally binding contract, this charge is unfounded and must be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, the registered keeper requires: 1. Strict proof of the signage layout in place on the date in question, 2. Dated photographic evidence showing the sign securely installed at the material time, 3. A site map showing the location of all signage, 4. Evidence of your legal standing to issue and pursue parking charges at this location. Please confirm cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice or provide the necessary information to enable independent adjudication. The registered keeper does not consent to any processing of personal data beyond that required for the purposes of this appeal. Yours faithfully, Registered Keeper
-
Could show us the wording which you used in your appeal to the parking operator?
-
I have requested CPM to tell me which sign was used so I can see how far away the sign was to my car. Should I go via the IAS? And what should I say? Does the discrepancy of where the letter says my vehicle was parked to where it actually was?
-
The OP has already appealed to the operator and had this rejected. The operator is an IPC member, so no POPLA.
Primacy of contract might be a difficult argument here with no mention of parking in the lease, and according to the OP not advertised with parking included.
I think we need to see the signage (and lack thereof in the relevant area).
-
The NtK is non compliant in a number of ways - this can be used with POPLA but won't be accepted by the operator.
Personally, I would appeal to the operator (in order to obtain a POPLA Code) purely as vehicle keeper.
Your appeal point is that you feel that by renting the property the landlord has given the tenant direct permission to park one vehicle on the land and, as such, in that circumstance, there is no further requirement for the vehicle driver to enter into a separate contract with a private parking contractor in order to park.
This is known as primacy of contract.
The operator will almost certainly reject the appeal.
We can then word a POPLA appeal using the non compliant PoFA argument which will be far more difficult for them to rebut.
Quick question, have you tried pressuring the landowner to get this cancelled?
-
It’s rented and I don’t believe it was, but when we moved in we were advised that we needed to get a e-permit for the vehicle.
-
Thank you for the patience. I have just revised my tenancy agreement and there is nothing about parking.
I have also contacted Hyde group who are in charge of the land they don’t have any record of parking agreements/lease with residents.
Do you own the property or is it rented?
If rented, was it advertised with parking included?
-
I just read the letter and there are some issues the vehicle was parked outside 13 Besson street, SE14 5AE not 101 Besson street! Can I use that against them? The postcode stated does have signs but where I parked my car which is 13 Besson street SE14 5AE does not have any parking signs around? They’re like a 3/5min walk apart!!
-
This is the original PCN received via post:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSEPA
(https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSF84)
(http://<a href="https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSF84" target="_blank"><img src="https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/7a/67/ea/ME1DSF84_t.jpeg" alt="IMG_6871.jpeg"/></a>)
-
It would be helpful if you could post up the PCN redacting only personal information.
-
Thank you for the patience. I have just revised my tenancy agreement and there is nothing about parking.
I have also contacted Hyde group who are in charge of the land they don’t have any record of parking agreements/lease with residents.
We received a letter at the start of the year saying that we had to get a permit via an app called ‘Sippi’ to park as it will be enforced by CPM. There was no signs at all near where I parked.
-
It would be helpful to see the exact wording of your lease in relation to parking.
You should get some photos showing the layout and prominence (or lack thereof) of the signage and the site, particularly in relation to where the vehicle was parked.
Signage arguments can be somewhat harder to run in residential cases, as you're clearly aware of the presence of the parking company by virtue of having one of their permits, but this doesn't absolve them of the requirement to properly communicate the terms.
But let's start by exhausting the "terms of lease" argument as above.
-
It does say anything about how to park. Just that we need to obtain a permit and follow the parking terms and conditions displayed. The permits are digital.
-
You didn’t answer my question.
What does your lease say about parking?
OK, so it’s not an allocated parking space, but does it say you can park anywhere, and does it say you have to display a permit when parking? Or not?
CPM can’t impose their own “rules” on you unless you agree to them formally, if they are a variation on the terms of your lease.
-
The lease does not give us a specific parking space. But there is no signs around the parking area to tell us T&Cs on where we can/can’t park. The sign used in the picture was not there when I parked and is not there now. I have a picture of the entrance before the PCN. Was issued and one after with no signs on entrance. I’m assuming the operator went to the other side of the residential area that does have signs. I thought that invalidated the PCN as it’s being enforced with no signage?
-
In addition to your “permit”, what does your lease, leashold or assured tenancy agreement say about parking? Do you have an allocated space, or does your lease etc. permit you to park in the car park? Yes, you probably need to appeal to the IAS, who will probably reject your appeal, but first of all you need to establish your legal position and whether or not a parking company has any authority to issue an invoice to you for breaking its terms, especially if you already have unfettered permission without a requirement to display a permit.
-
I have been issued for parking inappropriately outside my flat. I have a permit to park in the car park but there is no signs around area or on entry. The CEO has used a sign that was taken down and placed in a random place by neighbours not where they have mapped it out. I appealed on the basis that that sign used is not there and was never there (which is true) but they have rejected this and asking me to pay £100 or go to the IAS. What should I do?
Website: CPM
PCN:50977400
VRN: EJ57ZFP
https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCFX https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCFY https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCG0 https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCG2
(http://<a href="https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCFX" target="_blank"><img src="https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/3e/3d/fc/ME1DSCFX_t.jpeg" alt="IMG_6867.jpeg"/></a><a href="https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCFY" target="_blank"><img src="https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/98/e2/13/ME1DSCFY_t.jpeg" alt="IMG_6868.jpeg"/></a><a href="https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCG0" target="_blank"><img src="https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/f5/34/63/ME1DSCG0_t.jpeg" alt="IMG_6866.jpeg"/></a><a href="https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1DSCG2" target="_blank"><img src="https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/d6/0e/67/ME1DSCG2_t.jpeg" alt="IMG_6869.jpeg"/></a>)