The sign is not capable of forming a parking contract with a driver. Why:
1. Prohibitive wording
The dominant message, in the largest font, is:
• “NO PARKING IN THIS AREA AT ANY TIME”
• That is a prohibition, not an offer of parking on specified terms. Contractual liability for a parking charge normally arises where the sign offers parking subject to conditions (e.g. “2 hours free parking – £100 charge if you overstay”). Here, the only thing being “offered” is an instruction not to park at all.
2. Inconsistent with a contractual offer
• The smaller text tries to say “By parking or remaining on this land you, the driver, accept liability to pay the Parking Charge…”.
• However, that sits directly underneath a blanket “NO PARKING” prohibition. A court can reasonably find that a driver cannot both be forbidden from parking and be treated as having accepted a contractual offer to park on payment of £100. The more natural analysis is that anyone who parks is a trespasser.
3. Trespass, not contract
• If parking is completely forbidden, the correct legal characterisation is trespass. Only the landowner (or someone with sufficient interest in the land) can generally sue for damages for trespass, and those damages would be limited to the landowner’s actual loss, not an arbitrary £100 tariff. A managing agent like CPMS usually has no standing to claim damages for trespass in its own name.
4. Prominence of the “charge” term
• The “Parking charge of £100 payable within 28 days” line is there, but it is not clearly linked to any permitted use of the area. It reads more as a deterrent or penalty for disobedience of the “NO PARKING” command than as part of a genuine contractual bargain.
So, for defence purposes, you have a very solid line of argument that:
• the sign is forbidding,
• therefore it does not make a contractual offer to park, and
• any remedy would lie (if at all) in trespass on behalf of the landowner, not in a contractual parking charge payable to CPMS.
Good that you have not responded. They have no idea who the driver is and only the driver can be liable because that Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA para 9(2)(a) as there is no period of parking noted on the notice. A single timestamp is not a "period" of parking. There is no evidence that any contract was formed with the unknown (to them) driver.
Also, the PCN is for "no parking". As this is a contractual dispute, a "Mo parking" sign cannot form a contract.
If this actually goes to court, there is plenty persuasive appellate court decisions such as Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (CA, [1971] 2 QB 163), Vine v Waltham Forest (CA, [2000] EWCA Civ 106) to name a few.
As no claim has yet been issued, upload the following as a PDF letter to BW Legal using their web portal:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]