Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.
The notice lacks this crucial element and I challenge the parking charge on this basis.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper,which significantly weaken their caseif the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.
There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.
The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I
suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Additionally, the charge was issued for 'No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways' - this would seem to be a forbidding term. A term that says 'no parking' isn't making an offer to park on certain terms, so there is a further argument that no contract was formed.
Does this mean the Driver has been given a charge for "parking". The sign says "no parking". The parking co. says you entered into a contract with them to pay for parking in the way you did. But the sign says no parking… So they can't offer you a contract for parking because their own sign says no parking.
Is that right?
The company is identified on the signs as CPM UK Car Park Management (no "Ltd") but I've noticed on the parking charge notice is from UK Car Park Management LtdThe signage also mentions UK Car Park Management Ltd (see just above the 0345 number).
I see that CPM are IPC members, which I understand makes appealing the charge a futile exercise.Futile insofar as neither CPM nor the IAS are likely to accept an appeal. However, when faced with an invoice for an alleged debt that you do not believe you owe, it is sensible to write to the alleged creditor (in this case, in the form of an 'appeal'), stating why you do not believe the money is owed. This has the added benefit of showing the parking company you are not a pushover, and are well-informed. This might help put you in the 'too much effort' pile, and discourage them from going to court.
I'm really poor with letter writingYou might be doing yourself a disservice there, your post on here is certainly articulate.