I've just found their reply to the apeal.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/07/2025 14:16:27.
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 09/06/2025.
The ticket was issued on 04/06/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has parked without clearly displaying a valid UK CPM parking permit and without having a valid e-permit for the vehicle on record. 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 'PCN INFO.
Signage clearly states “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT OR CLEARLY DISPLAY A VALID UK CPM PERMIT IN THE WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES. VEHICLES HOLDING BAY OR AREA ALLOCATED PERMITS MUST PARK IN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA,"
Our records indicate that vehicle registration [CAR REG REDACTED] was not registered on the permit system on the date of contravention. However, other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system. This can be seen in 'E-Permit Evidence'. Therefore, the above vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated on all signage displayed within the restricted area.
It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure a valid CPM parking permit is clearly and securely displayed in clear sight within the windscreen of the vehicle or that the vehicle is registered with a valid UK CPM E-Permit, prior to parking within a restricted area.
1. Permit Validity
After reviewing our records, we can confirm that the appellant's vehicle was not displaying a valid permit at the time of the contravention, nor was a valid e-permit registered for their vehicle on the date in question. The terms and conditions for parking at this location clearly state that only vehicles with a valid permit, either physical or electronic, are authorised to park on-site. As there was no valid permit associated with the appellant's vehicle at the time, the vehicle was not authorised to park.
2. Signage and Contractual Terms
The site is clearly signed in accordance with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. Our records show that clear and prominent signage, detailing the terms and conditions for parking, is in place at the location on the date in question. These signs are positioned at key points to ensure that all drivers are made aware of the parking restrictions. The signage complies with the legal requirements for font size, visibility, and clarity of terms.
We can confirm that UK CPM does not own the land upon which the vehicle was parked; however, we do hold a legal contract that authorises our enforcement officers to monitor and maintain the parking areas on behalf of the landowner. This therefore entitles UK CPM to issue and uphold all parking charge notices given to those who have breached the parking restrictions.
3. Enforcement Mechanism
We can confirm that our enforcement mechanisms, which involve regular patrols by our trained wardens, are fully compliant with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. The warden on duty at the time of the contravention issued the Parking Charge Notice based on the vehicle being in the location and in violation of the parking terms. Our wardens are trained to monitor and enforce the terms in accordance with the established guidelines for this site.
4. Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
We confirm that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued for this PCN complies with all the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NTK was issued within the required timescale and contains all the mandatory information as specified in Schedule 4 of the Act, including the opportunity for the appellant to appeal and the details required to facilitate such an appeal.
5. Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and Legal Requirements
We understand the appellant's concerns regarding the independence of the appeals process. The IAS operates as an independent body, and its assessors are qualified professionals with legal experience. All appeals are reviewed impartially, and decisions are based on the available evidence in accordance with the relevant laws and industry standards.
In response to the appellant's query regarding the case law cited, we can confirm that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued in full compliance with applicable regulations. The signage at the location forms the basis of the contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the issuance of the PCN was based on clear terms and conditions, including the requirement for a valid permit.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.
As i mentioned before, they haven't provided proof that they have a contract with my landlord and I believe that just saying you have a contract, doesn't mean you have a contract lol.
and they still believe the NtK is fully POFA compliant. I was going to write the following:
My tenancy agreement gives me a superior right to park, as shown by clause 11.2 (I shall attach a screenshot of the clause)
• Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001]: A landlord cannot derogate from a granted right of way or parking.
• Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd [2012]: A tenant’s granted right to park cannot be interfered with without express consent.
My tenancy agreement mentions that a valid permit must be displayed in the windshield. No physical permit was ever received, and no other tenant has displayed a physical permit when parking, which shows a clear departure from what is written. My tenancy makes no reference to an e-permit and does not state I must follow UKCPMs rules.
Regarding 4. the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant, as it does not specify the period of parking for when the contravention occurred, as stated;
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
UK-CPM has failed to provide evidence of a written contract that enables them to manage the car park. merely mentioning that they have a contract is not sufficient evidence.
Show Posts
