Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you I have responded with this.

But i have looked at their evidence as they have confirmed the sign was "mounted on a wooden fence." And it's actually a Joke that they can confirm this when their own evidence says otherwise!

]

This is what they have responded:

UK CPM does not accept the appellant's assertions. The evidence submitted includes a site plan identifying the locations of the contractual signage together with photographs of the signs in situ. These signs are positioned throughout the development to ensure motorists are provided with reasonable notice of the parking terms and conditions before leaving their vehicles. The appellant has produced an annotated site plan based upon their own observations; however, this does not demonstrate that the signage relied upon by UK CPM was absent on the material date.

The appellant submits that UK CPM has not identified the specific sign nearest to the vehicle or measured the distance between the vehicle and that sign. UK CPM respectfully submits that there is no requirement for an operator to demonstrate the precise distance from every parked vehicle to the nearest sign. The relevant consideration is whether the signage, when viewed as a whole across the development, is sufficient to bring the parking terms and conditions to the attention of motorists. UK CPM maintains that it is.

The appellant also refers to an alleged absence of an entrance sign and contends that certain signs shown on the site plan were missing. UK CPM notes these assertions; however, they remain unsupported by any independent evidence demonstrating that the contractual signage relied upon was not present on the date of the parking event. Even if individual signs were temporarily absent or unavailable, this would not establish that the site as a whole lacked adequate contractual signage where numerous other signs remained in place throughout the development.

The appellant further states that one of the signs shown in UK CPM's photographic evidence was leaning against a wooden structure rather than permanently affixed. UK CPM submits that the manner in which a sign is mounted does not, in itself, determine whether it is capable of conveying contractual terms. The relevant issue is whether the sign was visible and legible to motorists using the site. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the wording of the sign was clear and readable. The appellant has provided no evidence to suggest that the sign had been moved from its intended location or that it was obscured or incapable of being read. Furthermore, we can confirm the sign is mounted on a wooden fence.

The appellant refers to a previous Parking Charge Notice and previous concerns regarding enforcement at the site.

As previously stated, each Parking Charge Notice is considered on its own individual facts. Allegations concerning previous enforcement activity or unrelated Parking Charge Notices have no bearing upon whether the parking terms and conditions were complied with on this occasion.

The appellant also states that they are a resident and held a valid electronic permit. UK CPM does not dispute that the appellant was a resident or that an e-permit had been issued. However, possession of a permit does not provide an unrestricted right to park irrespective of the site's parking conditions. The permit authorises parking only where the terms and conditions displayed on site are complied with. Residents remain subject to the parking scheme implemented by the landowner or managing agent, and compliance with the applicable restrictions remains a condition of parking.

The appellant further relies upon the terms of their tenancy agreement and submits that it does not require compliance with UK CPM's parking scheme. UK CPM is not a party to the appellant's tenancy agreement and cannot comment upon the contractual relationship between the appellant and their landlord. The Parking Charge Notice has not been issued under the tenancy agreement but under the separate parking terms displayed on private land. The issue for the Independent Adjudicator is whether the vehicle was parked in accordance with those displayed terms and conditions at the material time.

The appellant also refers to correspondence with Hyde Housing and states that Hyde confirmed there was no separate parking agreement between tenants and UK CPM. UK CPM respectfully submits that this correspondence is not determinative of the issues in this appeal. UK CPM operates the parking management scheme under the authority of the landowner or its appointed managing agent. Motorists parking on the land are subject to the parking terms displayed on the signage regardless of whether they have entered into any separate agreement directly with UK CPM.

Finally, the appellant asserts that UK CPM has failed to address the substance of their appeal.

UK CPM respectfully disagrees. The appellant's representations have been carefully considered, and the evidence submitted has been reviewed in full. However, the appellant's submissions do not demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly. UK CPM maintains that the signage at the site was sufficient to communicate the parking terms and conditions, that the parking scheme was clearly in operation, and that the Parking Charge Notice was issued following a breach of those terms.

Accordingly, UK CPM respectfully submits that the appellant has not provided any evidence capable of invalidating the Parking Charge Notice and requests that the Independent Adjudicator dismiss the appeal.

Thank you i have responded with this:

1. Signage
The operator states that "there is clear signage throughout the development" and that I was "within clear view of our sign."
I do not accept this assertion.
The operator has not identified the specific sign upon which they rely, nor have they demonstrated:
•   the distance between my vehicle and that sign;
•   that the sign was visible from the driver's position before parking;
•   that there was an unobstructed line of sight; or
•   that the sign could reasonably be read before any alleged contract was formed.
My annotated site plan demonstrates that numerous signs shown on the operator's layout were not present on the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, there is no entrance sign when entering this section of the estate, and the nearest remaining sign is approximately 120 metres from where my vehicle was parked.
The operator dismisses my evidence as "my own assessment" but provides no contemporaneous evidence to show that the missing signs were in fact present.
Additionally, the Civil Enforcement Officer's own photographs show that the sign relied upon is not permanently affixed. It appears to be leaning against the bin storage area rather than securely mounted. A sign that is not permanently installed cannot reasonably be relied upon as fixed contractual signage, as it is capable of being moved or repositioned at any time.
The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that the alleged contractual terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists.
________________________________________
2. Missing Signs and Previous PCN
The operator states that a previous Parking Charge Notice is irrelevant.
I agree that each case should be considered on its own merits.
However, my reference to the previous Parking Charge Notice was not relied upon as evidence that this charge should automatically be cancelled. It was raised because it demonstrates that there have been previous concerns regarding enforcement at this location.
The important issue is that my annotated site plan identifies numerous signs that are no longer present. The operator has not rebutted this evidence with dated photographs showing that those signs existed on the material date.
________________________________________
3. Resident Permit
The operator accepts that:
•   I am a resident; and
•   I held a valid electronic resident permit.
This confirms that I was authorised to park on the estate.
The operator states that a permit is subject to compliance with the site's parking terms.
However, the operator has produced no evidence that these terms were adequately communicated at the location where my vehicle was parked.
________________________________________
4. Tenancy Agreement
The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice is not based on my tenancy agreement.
This misses the point.
My tenancy agreement governs my rights as a resident.
The tenancy agreement grants me the right to park and does not require me to display a permit or comply with UK Car Park Management Ltd's parking scheme. It contains no provision permitting UKCPM to impose additional contractual obligations or financial penalties upon residents.
Accordingly, my tenancy agreement takes precedence over any subsequently introduced parking terms. The operator cannot unilaterally override my existing contractual rights by placing signs around the estate.
As my right to park arises from my tenancy and not from any contract offered by UKCPM, the parking terms relied upon by the operator are irrelevant and do not apply to my existing rights as a resident.
________________________________________
5. Hyde Housing
The operator states that my correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect their authority.
This is not the point I raised.
I contacted Hyde to establish whether tenants had entered into any parking agreement incorporating UKCPM's parking terms.
Hyde confirmed that there is no such agreement with tenants.
The operator has therefore produced no evidence that residents have contractually agreed to be bound by UKCPM's parking terms beyond whatever lawful rights already exist under their tenancy agreements.
________________________________________
6. Appeal Response
The operator states that all my representations have now been considered.
However, their response still fails to address the substance of my appeal.
The operator has not produced evidence demonstrating:
•   that the nearest sign was visible from where I parked;
•   that the sign was permanently installed;
•   that an entrance sign existed;
•   that the missing signs identified in my evidence were actually present;
•   that the location where I parked was clearly identified as being subject to the alleged restriction.
Instead, the operator relies upon general statements that signage exists throughout the development.
General assertions are not evidence.

This is what CPM has replied with: "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 08/05/2026.
The ticket was issued on 07/05/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has parked outside of a designated parking area/parking bay.

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 attached document ‘50977400'.

Signage clearly states "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY. NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS / YELLOW LINES / PAVED / HATCHED OR LANDSCAPED AREAS".

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is parked within a designated parking area/bay, prior to parking within a restricted area.

1. Signage

The appellant states that there was no entrance signage or nearby contractual signage and that the nearest sign was approximately 120 metres away. We do not accept that the signage at the site is inadequate. Signage is displayed throughout the development to communicate the parking terms and conditions, including the requirement to park wholly within a marked bay. The appellant's annotated site plan reflects their own assessment and does not demonstrate that the terms were incapable of being brought to motorists' attention.

2. Missing signs and previous PCN

The appellant refers to missing signs and a previously cancelled Parking Charge Notice. Each Parking Charge Notice is assessed on its own merits, and a previous cancellation has no bearing on this case. The appellant has not shown that the signage present on the date of the contravention was insufficient to communicate the parking terms.

3. Resident permit

We acknowledge that the appellant is a resident and held a valid electronic permit. However, a permit authorises parking subject to compliance with the site's parking terms. The Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay, not because it was unauthorised.

4. Tenancy agreement

The appellant states that their tenancy agreement does not require parking within marked bays. The Parking Charge Notice is issued under the parking terms applicable to the private land and is not based on the tenancy agreement.

5. Hyde Housing

The appellant's correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect the operator's authority to manage parking at the site or the requirement for motorists to comply with the displayed parking terms.

6. Appeal response

While the initial rejection focused on the reason for issue, all of the appellant's representations have now been fully considered. None of the points raised demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly.

By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice."

What should I reply with or should i submit straight to the Adjudicator?

Help guys?

Hi guys,

I have attached the image of the signage map they sent to me in Nov 2025. I have crossed out all the signs that were not there in blue and highlighted where my car was parked with a white cross and purple square. Hopefully this helps in anyway.

https://ibb.co/CsVC7cDb

I have requested CPM to tell me which sign was used so I can see how far away the sign was to my car. Should I go via the IAS? And what should I say? Does the discrepancy of where the letter says my vehicle was parked to where it actually was?

I just read the letter and there are some issues the vehicle was parked outside 13 Besson street, SE14 5AE not 101 Besson street! Can I use that against them? The postcode stated does have signs but where I parked my car which is 13 Besson street SE14 5AE does not have any parking signs around? They’re like a 3/5min walk apart!!