5
« on: December 12, 2025, 10:42:58 am »
I have had this reply:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 12/12/2025 10:30:41.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 04/11/2025.
The ticket was issued on 30/10/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.
The vehicle was at the car park for 10 minutes and 28 seconds, evidence of this can be seen in the attached document '70131149'.
The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.
Signage clearly states “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT. VEHICLES HOLDING A VALID E-PERMIT FOR AN ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA MUST PARK WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA”.
Our records indicate that vehicle registration OE14ZWR was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the attached document '70131149'.
The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.
The Registered Keeper did not name the Driver, therefore, as we have fully complied with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, we are holding the Registered Keeper liable for this PCN.
This site provides a 10 minute grace period for motorists to review the signage and determine whether they can comply with the terms and conditions, and if not, to leave the site. This is confirmed in the attached document ‘70131149'. The grace period is clearly defined and is not subject to dispute by the appellant, the driver, or the IAS. We have adhered to the requirements of the Single Code of Practice by allowing the prescribed grace periods. It is important to note that a definitive cut-off point for grace periods must exist to ensure consistency and fairness.
Due to the use of ANPR cameras on this site, there is no requirement for UK CPM to have evidence of the specific parking space the vehicle parked in, this is because we have photographic evidence from the ANPR cameras, of the entrance and exit times. The PCN has been issued due to the length of time the vehicle remained on site without being authorised to do so, rather than for the bay in which the vehicle was parked.
The site in question has been audited and approved by our governing body; therefore, it meets the requirements of their Code of Practice. Our signage on site is at industry standard and contains full and legible terms and conditions of parking; these are also clearly positioned so that they are obvious to the motorist. The Code clearly states, "The IPC will audit signage to ensure that the Terms and Conditions are suitable to form the basis of a contract and to make certain that they are clear, concise, unambiguous, and not misleading".
The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear and exists in the immediate vicinity of the Appellant's vehicle.
By parking and remaining on the site, the Driver has entered into a contract as outlined by the signage and agreed to comply with its terms. The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, and this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued under Contract Law. Given the clarity of the signage, the driver had ample opportunity to decide not to park and exit the site, thereby avoiding liability for a PCN.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.
Show Posts
