Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: shadowliner on September 10, 2025, 10:19:55 pm
-
"Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UK Car Park Management Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled."
-
Funnily enough, I had another company vehicle get an identical "PCN" at the same location a few days later.
I sent the same appeal for both "PCN"s.
One appeal was rejected, one was accepted.
The reply to the accepted appeal;
We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to your vehicle.
Please be advised that on this occasion your appeal has been upheld and the above PCN has now been cancelled. We have now removed your details from this PCN.
Quickly sent the rejected one to IAS to make sure CPM pay their fee.
-
You can even give them a bit more reason in your appeal:
Subject: Appeal – PCN [reference], VRM [reg], Portal Way, London (Park Royal), incident 04/09/2025
I am the registered keeper. Liability is denied.
Failure to comply with PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(a): your NtK does not “specify the period of parking”. Saying “the period immediately preceding the event time” is not a period. As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), at least a short period of parking must be specified; a single timestamp or vague wording is insufficient to show that the vehicle was parked at all.
No contract or breach is evidenced. Your own wording and images show signage stating “No Parking / No Stopping”, which is prohibitive and incapable of forming any contractual offer. In any event, there is no evidence that the vehicle remained longer than the minimum consideration period for the driver to read the terms before leaving (see PPSCoP section 5.1). Absent proof of a period of parking beyond consideration, no contract could have been formed and no breach can be established. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver.
Cancel the charge and erase my data. If you reject, I will appeal to the IAS—even if only to impose the fee you incur unless you concede—and I invite you to try and litigate against the Keeper if you insist.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
-
I agree.
The period of parking has to specify a period long enough to allow the driver to read the “clearly displayed throughout the area” signs and to enter into a contract by parking. A single point in time does not do this. Nor does saying that a single point in time is a “period”!
As with https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/cpm-portal-way-acton/msg89318/#msg89318 yesterday,
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 PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPM 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. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CPM have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
CPM will reject the appeal, perhaps because some people seem to have picked up on it and use it as a generic appeal even when PoFA is complied with, then it will cost them £23 I think when you go to the IAS and explain why it’s not compliant, the IAS will probably reject the appeal anyway but in the end it won’t get to court.
-
"PCN" - https://imgur.com/a/SOZlDg4
Driver unknown as it is a shared company vehicle.
I'm leaning to saying that it isn't PoFa compliant due to no parking period defined, even though they try with "The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above"?