Free Traffic Legal Advice

Right, it’s a bit longer but I’ve been having help from my dad but he’s away in Australia so battling time differences. Come up with this

Sirs

I have received a parking charge notice from UK Car Park Management Limited (reference # ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___. My initial appeal to UK Car Park Management Limited has been rejected, apparently without reference to the arguments advanced in my appeal. I am therefore appealing via the IPC in its capacity as an Independent Arbitration Service. I do so as the registered keeper. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am appealing the charge on the following grounds.

1. No contract possible

The charge was issued for 'No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways' - this is a forbidding term. A term that says 'no parking' is not making an offer to park on certain terms, so there is a further argument that no contract was formed.

In this case the operator has issued the PCN to me, claiming the driver parked in a "No Parking" area. There can be no contract as the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. There can be no contract as there is nothing on offer to the motorist.

Parking somewhere the motorist is not entitled to park could be considered trespass, for which the landowner can institute action. However, the operator is not the landowner and cannot pursue the motorist for trespass. The operator is pursuing for an alleged breach of terms and conditions as set out on the PCN.

The PCN has not been issued correctly. Therefore the appeal must be allowed.

2. Inadequate Signage

The signage at the site in question does not comply with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice.

The entrance to the controlled area is at the point Chessall Road leaves a roundabout on the Worthing Road, which is a main road through the village of Southwater, West Sussex.

The sole sign at the entrance to the controlled area is woefully inadequate, containing text far smaller than the font sizes specified in Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice. The sign itself, being dark green in colour with gold text, is not at all prominent and with such poor contrast as to be all but invisible for a motorist.
and in flagrant contravention of the requirement of IPC Code of Practice with regard to text size, contrast and illumination.
Please refer to Photograph 1 attached.
The requirements in the current IPC Code of Practice V9 state:

Text Size:
The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign.

Contrast and Illumination:
There must be colour contrast between the text and its background For example, black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast. Other colour combinations can be adopted at the Operators discretion, but the Operator should avoid combinations which are difficult to read.

Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. Appropriate illumination can be achieved in a variety of ways for example:

1.ensuring sufficient ambient lighting;
2.using reflective material on signage;
3.positioning signs where headlights are likely to illuminate them.

Clearly, the woeful nature of the site entrance signage is such that none of the text is visible from a moving car. As a result of this, and the site being made up of normally tarmacked roads, it is entirely unclear to drivers that they are leaving the public highway and entering private land subject to private parking restrictions.

The signage around the site detailing the alleged terms and conditions follows a similar pattern to the woefully inadequate entrance signage: signs are presented in a small, low contrast yellow gold coloured font, against a green background and are positioned 7 to 8 feet up, far too high to be readily legible.

The £100 charge is not sufficiently prominent.

The choice of colour, small low contrast font and mounting height, means that it is nearly impossible to spot the necessary detail unless one is actively looking for it.

This lack of prominence is even worse during hours of darkness. Without a phone light or similar the sign, with its combination of small font, poor colour contrast and being so high it is incredibly difficult to read. In fact the signage is all but invisible in the operators own photographs.

This fact, combined with the lack of suitable entrance signage (which would alert a driver of the need to seek out further signage), means that the terms of the alleged contract cannot be adequately conveyed.

A motorist cannot be bound by terms and conditions that were not adequately brought to his attention, and as such, no contract was formed.

The assertion that the signage is woefully inadequate has not been refuted in the response from UK Car Park Management Limited.

3. Lack of Keeper Liability

The Parking Charge Notice fails to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4). As a result of this, UK Car Park Management Limited are unable to recover the unpaid charges from me, the registered keeper.

3.1 No "Invitation to Pay" per Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

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.

Conclusion

In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.

3.2 No Period of Parking stated

Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), for a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to be compliant and thus able to hold the keeper liable for a parking charge, it must meet specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the NtK must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates" (Paragraph 9(2)(a)).

Compliance with "Period of Parking" Requirement

Stating a Single Point in Time: If the NtK only provides a single point in time (e.g., the time the vehicle was observed), this does not fully satisfy the requirement of specifying a "period of parking." A single point in time does not describe a range or duration, which is what a "period" implies. The vehicle could have been there for one minute or one year.

Reference to "Period Immediately Preceding": Simply stating that the notice "relates to the period immediately preceding" the single point in time does not provide a specific period of parking. This phrase is vague and does not define a concrete duration or time frame, which could be necessary to establish when the parking event occurred.

Conclusion

No adequately defined "Period of Parking"

Based on the information provided and the requirements set out under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA, a Notice to Keeper that only specifies a single point in time and states that it "relates to the period immediately preceding" that point would not be fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act. For the NtK to be compliant, it should explicitly state a specific "period of parking" — a defined duration or range of time during which the alleged parking event took place.

If the NtK fails to specify this "period of parking," then it does not meet all the requirements of Paragraph 9, and the keeper may not be held liable for the parking charge under PoFA.

The assertion that the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) has not been refuted in the response from UK Car Park Management Limited.

4. Creditor not properly identified

Upon closer examination, the site notices do not appear to mention any Creditor. The
 notices do mention UK Car Park Management Limited as the manager.

5. No Landowner Authority

I am lessee, on a shared ownership basis, of a house on the road in question. My occupation of the property is specifically governed by the terms of the lease which exists between me and Moat. Neither UK Car Park Management Limited nor any other third party are identified in the lease which is between me and Moat. UK Car Park Management Limited is a stranger to the agreement between me and Moat.

Even if there was an arrangement that made UK Car Park Management Limited a party to the lease, the lease does not impose any obligation on me to make payment of any kind, to anyone, for any parking issue. If UK Car Parking Management Limited relies on their notices somehow overriding or supplementing the lease between me and [name of other party on lease] they will be put to strict proof of the instrument which bestows on them any authority to do so.

6. Conclusion

For the reasons including, but not limited to, the foregoing, the charge should be cancelled forthwith. I am not liable to pay this charge, and will vigorously defend any legal action UK Car Park Management Limited may take.

Finally got a reply from CPM:
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options
Any advice for a suitable response?

As I said I had a lot of help from my dad writing the post. I find forming what I have in my head into something usable incredibly difficult even more so using the correct language for something like writing an appeal.
So far I have this as a rough draft/notes. Any help or advice and anything in between is a huge help so thanks in advance.

A motorist cannot be bound by terms and conditions that were not adequately brought to his attention. According to the IPC’s Code of Practice it states;

“Contrast and Illumination
There must be colour contrast between the text and its background For example, black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast. Other colour combinations can be adopted at the Operators discretion, but the Operator should avoid combinations which are difficult to read.
Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.
If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.
Appropriate illumination can be achieved in a variety of ways for example:
1. ensuring sufficient ambient lighting;
2. using reflective material on signage;
3. positioning signs where headlights are likely to illuminate them.”

I don’t believe gold text on a dark green background is enough of a contrast nor do I believe there is sufficient lighting to be able to read them at night or that they are positioned at a height where headlights will illuminate them, at least 8ft off the ground. 

As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge.

Therefore, I suggest that you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.  I require you to cancel the parking charge and remove my personal information from your database.

Just got back from a few days away and was welcomed by a lovely ticket from CPM, allegedly incurred by the Driver of the car of which I am the Keeper..

Ticket (Front & Back), parking notice, streetview, and lease agreement all here:

https://imgur.com/a/parking-ticket-southwater-PbcMhAj

The Keeper of this vehicle received a postal Notice to Keeper for parking on an unadopted road opposite the Keepers shared ownership (leasehold) property.

The Driver advises they had parked the vehicle, hitched to a caravan, across the road from the row of houses and adjacent to a narrow grass strip overnight. Here's a Google Street View link.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GwxHHZy1ofyDHANQ8?g_st=ac

The caravan was borrowed and is normally kept elsewhere. The car was hitched to the caravan overnight, prior to an early start for holiday.

The houses do have off road allocated parking but the car+caravan combo would not fit in the available space.

As noted, the road is unadopted.

The Keeper has lived in the nearby house on that street from new. It is on a shared ownership basis (part purchase, part rent).

When the houses were first sold there were no parking restriction signs. These appeared some time later, without any consultation and are only on a couple of roads within the estate. Cars are free to park on the roads everywhere else on the estate.

The notices take the form of discrete plain signs on some lamp posts, about 8 feet up with small point size gold-on-green text and are scarcely prominent.

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 Ltd and payments are to be made payable to UK Car Park Management Ltd.

I have checked my lease and there is no mention of any third party's involvement, although it does state parking on the roads is not allowed. I cannot see any mention of the managing company to introduce new rules. There is no mention of "quiet enjoyment" or similar form of words that I could find.

I see that CPM are IPC members, which I understand makes appealing the charge a futile exercise.

So: how best for the Keeper to proceed?

I'm really poor with letter writing so I'd really appreciate as much help as possible.

Many thanks for any help you can give