Further to the above, on day 27 after the issue date of the NtD, I advise you to send the following email to Dawn Marchington (DPM) — dp@richersounds.com and also CC the following: founder@richersounds.com, customerservices@richersounds.com and also CC yourself. You should also send a hard copy by first class post with a free certificate of posting from any post office to Thomas Henry Letchford, Company Secretary, Richer Sounds Ltd, Richer House, Hankey Place, London SE1 4BB:
Letter of complaint and notice of potential liability
To: The Company Secretary/Head of Customer Relations/Data Protection Manager, Richer Sounds Limited
Re: Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) Parking Charge – Site signage conflicts and agency liability
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Registered Keeper. A “Notice to Driver” (NtD) was placed on my vehicle by CPS at [site] on [date]. I am making a formal complaint and putting Richer Sounds on notice of potential liability arising from CPS’s actions as your apparent agent.
1. Signage conflicts and no contractual offer
Two competing sets of terms are displayed: (a) a CPS “Warning – Contractual Agreement” board stating parking is for Richer Sounds customers only/permit-holders, and (b) a Richer Sounds sign that invites non-customers to park for £10/hour, limits stays to one hour, and threatens £100 if left overnight. These core terms and categories irreconcilably conflict with CPS’s own board (which also purports to levy £100 per 24 hours). No single transparent offer is made to non-customers; no payment mechanism is provided. The NtD alleges “Not Authorised”, confirming the signage is prohibitory rather than contractual.
2. Code of Practice non-compliance
The CPS terms sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Practice (v9) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. In particular: failure to present a coherent set of T&Cs, contradictory “additional signage”, absence of a scheme logo on the CPS board, and lack of clear identification of “the Creditor” and when any sum becomes payable. CPS appears to be enforcing in circumstances that breach the applicable Codes.
3. Agency and principal liability
If CPS is acting on Richer Sounds’ authority, Richer Sounds is responsible for its agent’s conduct. Should CPS commence proceedings, I will apply under CPR 19.2 to add Richer Sounds as a party and/or bring an additional claim under CPR Part 20 and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. I also reserve the right to counterclaim for unlawful processing of my personal data under UK GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018, given the lack of lawful basis where no contract can arise from contradictory/prohibitive signage.
Required actions (seven days):
a) Confirm whether CPS acts under your authority at this site and provide the name of the contracting entity within the Richer Sounds group.
b) Instruct CPS to cancel the NtD forthwith and confirm cancellation to me in writing.
c) Confirm preservation of all relevant evidence (CCTV, site photographs, contracts, and signage records).
d) Confirm that non-customer parking is either prohibited (and remove/replace the contradictory invitation to pay) or, if permitted, provide the complete and operable payment mechanism and terms.
e) Confirm that, absent a lawful basis, my personal data will not be requested from DVLA or otherwise processed by your agent; alternatively, restrict processing under Art. 18 UK GDPR pending resolution.
If you decline to resolve this, this letter shall be relied upon to demonstrate that Richer Sounds had notice of the defects and exposure to liability but failed to act.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
[Postal address]
[Email]
Show us the whole of the front of the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was left on the windscreen. you can redact your VRM is you want but leave EVERYTHING else visible. It is highly likely that the NtD is not fully compliant with PoFA para 7.
DO NOT appeal this yet. If they attempt to get the Keepers details from the DVLA, they will one doing so unlawfully as their signs are not in compliance with the IPC or PPSCoP codes.
Some observations as to why this would not stand a chance if it were to ever be challenged in court:
Who is offering any contract? The signs at the site present two competing sets of terms from two different sources. The CPS red “WARNING – CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT” board purports to create a contract in CPS’s name. The Richer Sounds sign simultaneously sets its own parking rules and prices. With two contradictory sets of “core” terms and two apparent “offerors”, there is no single clear offer and no identifiable contracting party. This prevents any contract from forming.
Conflicts between the two signs
1. User categories
• CPS sign: “Parking for customers of Richer Sounds only whilst visiting our store” and references to CPS permit holders. That is prohibitive to non-customers.
• Richer Sounds sign: distinguishes “Richer Sounds customers” and “non-Richer Sounds customers” and then purports to allow non-customers to park for a fee.
These positions are mutually inconsistent (prohibition versus paid permission).
2. Price and tariff
• CPS sign: asserts “right to park… at a cost of £100 per vehicle per 24h period (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days)”.
• Richer Sounds sign: states “Any non-Richer Sounds customers will be charged £10 per hour”, also “Maximum stay is 1 hour”, and “Any vehicle left overnight will be charged £100.”
These are irreconcilable price terms (£100 per 24h versus £10 per hour; different triggers for the £100 figure). A contract cannot arise where the price term is uncertain.
3. Status of non-customers
• CPS: the “customers only”/“not authorised” language forbids non-customer parking and offers no terms to them.
• Richer Sounds: implies non-customers may park for a fee.
This contradiction makes any alleged acceptance by a non-customer impossible.
4. Payment mechanism
No sign explains how, where, or when a non-customer can pay the £10 per hour. No machine, QR code, phone line, web address, or instruction is shown. An “offer” that cannot be performed is not a workable offer.
5. Alleged breach reason
The NtD cites “Not Authorised”. That is a prohibition, not a term capable of contractual “breach for non-payment”. If parking was truly available for a fee to non-customers, the breach would be “failure to pay”. Using prohibitive wording underscores that no contractual licence was offered to the driver. At most this would be trespass, which only the landholder could pursue. A parking operator generally lacks standing to claim trespass damages.
6. Consideration/grace period
Ticketing within minutes of arrival demonstrates no reasonable consideration period was afforded to read signs and leave. The PPSCoP requires a minimum 5 minute period before enforcement.
7. Breach of signage rules (IPC CoP v9 and PPSCoP)
• IPC AOS logo: Absent from the CPS terms board, contrary to PPSCoP requirements for operator identification and scheme logo.
• IPC CoP v9 clause “Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions”
a. Sufficient number/visibility: the presence of two competing sets of terms itself creates uncertainty about which sign governs; clarity and adequacy are not achieved.
b. Inform all T&Cs: the CPS board and the Richer Sounds board together fail to present a single coherent set of terms applicable to motorists; key items such as payment method for non-customers are missing.
c. Identify yourself as “the Creditor”: the CPS board does not clearly identify the “Creditor” using that label. A footer with company details is not the same as explicit creditor identification required by the CoP.
d. Identify the amount of any charge and explain when it becomes payable: the CPS board states £100 per 24 hours (reduced to £60 within 14 days) but simultaneously frames this as both a “cost to park” and an enforcement charge; it does not clearly explain when any contractual sum becomes payable versus when an enforcement charge is issued. The Richer Sounds board states £10 per hour for non-customers but gives no trigger or mechanism of payment. The result is non-compliance: core price/trigger terms are unclear and contradictory.
e. Advise that if unpaid after 28 days keeper details will be requested from DVLA, or may be requested immediately: the CPS board does include wording to the effect that registered keeper details may be requested from DVLA if a charge remains unpaid after 28 days. However, satisfying (e) does not rescue the wider non-compliance with (a)–(d) and with the PPSCoP logo/clarity requirements.
• IPC CoP “Additional Signage must not contradict…”: the Richer Sounds sign (additional/landowner sign) contradicts the CPS terms board on who may park and at what price. This is a direct breach.
8. Legal effect of the contradictionsWhere core terms (identity of the creditor, price, and who is permitted to park) are uncertain or in conflict, no contract can be formed (CRA 2015). Any ambiguity is construed against the drafting party. Prohibitive wording such as “customers only” and “not authorised” negates any purported offer to non-customers, precluding a contractual charge.
9. Keeper strategy (day 27 appeal after NtD)Appeal as keeper on day 27 after the NtD. il the appeal to info@combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk and CC yourself. Do not identify the driver. Core grounds:
• No contract formed due to prohibitive and contradictory signage.
• Conflicting price and permission terms between CPS and Richer Sounds; no clear, transparent, or prominent single offer; no payment method for any £10/hour tariff.
• Allegation is “Not Authorised”, which is not a contractual breach scenario and confirms no offer was made to non-customers.
• No adequate consideration period before enforcement.
• Signage non-compliance with IPC CoP v9 (failure to identify “the Creditor” clearly; failure to present all T&Cs; contradictions; inadequate explanation of when any sum becomes payable; breach of “additional signage must not contradict”) and PPSCoP (missing IPC AOS logo and lack of clarity).
• Standing: put CPS to strict proof of landowner authority to offer contracts and to litigate in its own name given that Richer Sounds simultaneously sets different terms.
• PoFA: if they later try keeper liability, require strict compliance with paras 7 and 8; any defect in the NtD (no period of parking) and any failure to serve a fully compliant NtK within the statutory window defeats keeper liability.