The Appellant should be aware that I am allowing the appeal on the basis of the above only; not on the basis of the points raised in his appeal.The Appellant should be aware that I am not allowing this appeal because I am competent, but because the operator has made it impossible for me to find a reason to reject the appeal.
The Appellant should be aware that I am allowing the appeal on the basis of the above only; not on the basis of the points raised in his appeal.The Appellant should be aware that I am not allowing this appeal because I am competent, but because the operator has made it impossible for me to find a reason to reject the appeal.
But I am relying on them being honest...
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/07/2025 14:16:27.
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 09/06/2025.
The ticket was issued on 04/06/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has parked without clearly displaying a valid UK CPM parking permit and without having a valid e-permit for the vehicle on record. 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 'PCN INFO.
Signage clearly states “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT OR CLEARLY DISPLAY A VALID UK CPM PERMIT IN THE WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES. VEHICLES HOLDING BAY OR AREA ALLOCATED PERMITS MUST PARK IN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA,"
Our records indicate that vehicle registration [CAR REG REDACTED] was not registered on the permit system on the date of contravention. However, other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system. This can be seen in 'E-Permit Evidence'. Therefore, the above vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated on all signage displayed within the restricted area.
It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure a valid CPM parking permit is clearly and securely displayed in clear sight within the windscreen of the vehicle or that the vehicle is registered with a valid UK CPM E-Permit, prior to parking within a restricted area.
1. Permit Validity
After reviewing our records, we can confirm that the appellant's vehicle was not displaying a valid permit at the time of the contravention, nor was a valid e-permit registered for their vehicle on the date in question. The terms and conditions for parking at this location clearly state that only vehicles with a valid permit, either physical or electronic, are authorised to park on-site. As there was no valid permit associated with the appellant's vehicle at the time, the vehicle was not authorised to park.
2. Signage and Contractual Terms
The site is clearly signed in accordance with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. Our records show that clear and prominent signage, detailing the terms and conditions for parking, is in place at the location on the date in question. These signs are positioned at key points to ensure that all drivers are made aware of the parking restrictions. The signage complies with the legal requirements for font size, visibility, and clarity of terms.
We can confirm that UK CPM does not own the land upon which the vehicle was parked; however, we do hold a legal contract that authorises our enforcement officers to monitor and maintain the parking areas on behalf of the landowner. This therefore entitles UK CPM to issue and uphold all parking charge notices given to those who have breached the parking restrictions.
3. Enforcement Mechanism
We can confirm that our enforcement mechanisms, which involve regular patrols by our trained wardens, are fully compliant with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. The warden on duty at the time of the contravention issued the Parking Charge Notice based on the vehicle being in the location and in violation of the parking terms. Our wardens are trained to monitor and enforce the terms in accordance with the established guidelines for this site.
4. Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
We confirm that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued for this PCN complies with all the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NTK was issued within the required timescale and contains all the mandatory information as specified in Schedule 4 of the Act, including the opportunity for the appellant to appeal and the details required to facilitate such an appeal.
5. Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and Legal Requirements
We understand the appellant's concerns regarding the independence of the appeals process. The IAS operates as an independent body, and its assessors are qualified professionals with legal experience. All appeals are reviewed impartially, and decisions are based on the available evidence in accordance with the relevant laws and industry standards.
In response to the appellant's query regarding the case law cited, we can confirm that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued in full compliance with applicable regulations. The signage at the location forms the basis of the contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the issuance of the PCN was based on clear terms and conditions, including the requirement for a valid permit.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
Thanks b789 for the detailed and informative response!They didn’t.
UKCPM have now replied with the following:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZnTnO4g.png)
It feels like they just didn't bother to read what i pasted into the appeals system.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. In particular, your NtK fails to specify the required 'period of parking' as mandated by paragraph 9(2)(a). A single timestamp is not enough, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]. This alone is fatal to any reliance on PoFA.
There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no inference or assumptions can be drawn as confirmed in VCS Limited v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]. UKCPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
Furthermore, you are put on notice that the keeper is a lawful tenant with a pre-existing contractual right to park, granted by a tenancy agreement. While the lease refers to a valid permit being “displayed in the windscreen”, UKCPM operates an electronic permit system. No physical permit was ever issued, and no renewal notice was provided before the charge was issued. Attempting to penalise the keeper for not displaying something that does not exist, or for an expired virtual permit without notice or grace, is wholly unreasonable. You cannot override a pre-existing right to park by introducing new conditions through a third party. This is a textbook example of derogation from grant (Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch)) and an unlawful interference with rights under the lease (Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011).
Re: Parking Charge Notice issued by UKCPM – URGENT ACTION REQUIRED
Dear [Managing Agent / Name],
I am writing as the lawful tenant and registered keeper of the vehicle [VRM] regarding a speculative invoice issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd (“UKCPM”) dated 7 June 2025 and relating to an alleged breach on 4 June 2025. The PCN reference is [PCN ref].
This charge is wholly without merit and must be cancelled immediately. I put you on notice that you are jointly and severally liable for the conduct and wrongdoing of your appointed agent, UKCPM. As the principal, you are responsible for authorising or permitting UKCPM to operate under your instruction or with your consent.
Legal and Factual Background:• My tenancy agreement grants a contractual right to use a parking space, without additional cost, for the duration of the tenancy.
• The lease refers to a “valid permit” being “displayed in the windscreen”. However, no physical permit was ever issued, and the operator uses an electronic permit system.
• No notice of expiry or renewal was provided, and the charge was issued the day after expiry, without grace or warning.
• UKCPM’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it fails to specify any “period of parking”, contrary to Paragraph 9(2)(a). The persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirmed that a timestamp alone is not a period of parking.
• The charge is therefore unenforceable against the keeper and would fail in any competent court.
Your Responsibility:
You have permitted or contracted with UKCPM to enforce a parking regime that directly conflicts with the rights granted under my tenancy. Clause 11.2 of the lease grants use of a parking space, and clause 11.1.5 refers to a permit being “displayed in the windscreen”. UKCPM’s electronic permit system is a separate and unreferenced process that has not been incorporated into the lease.
The imposition of additional requirements, such as an electronic permit renewal scheme operated without notice, amounts to a material variation of lease terms. You are reminded that under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, no variation to a lease may be made unless done via proper procedure and with the written agreement of the requisite majority of affected leaseholders, or by application to the First-tier Tribunal. You have done neither.
This constitutes a derogation from grant (Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch)) and an unlawful interference with my leasehold rights (Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011). The parking charge is entirely without legal basis and must be withdrawn. You are liable as principal for your agent’s conduct and for any detriment caused by this unauthorised interference with tenants’ rights.
If this matter is not resolved immediately by cancelling the charge and confirming such in writing, I will consider formal escalation to:• The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), if this constitutes a breach of lease or a service charge matter;
• The Information Commissioner's Office, if any personal data was unlawfully processed by UKCPM;
• My local MP and press, to raise awareness of what appears to be an exploitative scheme targeting residents with lawful rights to park.
I reserve all rights in law. Please treat this as a formal notice and respond within 7 days confirming that the charge has been cancelled. Should you fail to act, you will be treated as jointly liable for any losses, stress, or costs incurred in challenging this wholly improper charge.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Lawful Tenant and Registered Keeper
Parking Clauses
11.1 In the event of the Tenant having use of a car parking space (“the Car Parking
Space”):
11.1.1 No part of the Car Parking Spaces shall be used for any purpose other than for
the parking of private motor vehicles with a current MOT Certificate (and
adequately taxed and insured if appropriate)
11.1.2 That no trade profession or employment shall be carried on at the Car Parking
Spaces
11.1.3 That no repairs to any vehicle shall be undertaken on the Car Parking Space.
11.1.4 The Tenant indemnifies the management company and the Landlord from and
against all liability arising in any way whatsoever out of the existence
condition or use of the Parking Space.
11.1.5 A valid permit shall be displayed in the windscreen at all times, and the
Landlord will have no obligation to reimburse the Tenant for charges incurred
in this respect.
11.2 The Tenant has the right to use one space within the car park serving the
building for the duration of this agreement on a non-exclusive first-come first-served basis
(the “Car Parking Space(s)”) at no additional cost.