I received a private parking invoice from UKCPS in 2023. I didn't pay it and told them to take me to court, and they are.
Facts of the matter: I entered a car park and drove into a bay to allow a passenger to collect a food order from a restaurant. The engine remained running, and I did not exit the vehicle. The passenger returned 2 minutes and 37 seconds later, and I immediately left the car park.
The signage states, among the usual things, that: "Welcome to [Doctor's Surgery] patients' car park" and "Vehicles belonging to [restaurant] staff and customers are not permitted to park in this car park."
I responded to UKCPS's money claim with a brief outline of my defence. They've rejected this and are saying UKCPS will continue to court if I don't pay their final settlement figure of £200.
I am happy to go to court and intend to present a case that no contract or breach existed because:
1. The signage is prohibitive. It doesn't make an offer of parking for customers and staff; it simply states they're not permitted to park there. A driver in a prohibited category cannot “accept” a non-existent offer; there is therefore no contract capable of being formed with that driver. Case law supporting this includes:
- Jopson v Homeguard: "Parking" is leaving a car for a duration beyond that needed for the normal actions of getting in/out, loading or unloading; and that “merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”, otherwise a traffic jam would be a line of parked cars.
- PCM (UK) v Bull: A sign that forbids parking cannot simultaneously offer a contract to park.
- ParkingEye v Beavis: A valid contract exists, subject to the usual offer, acceptance, and consideration. If any are missing, there's no contract.
2. The sign states, “Vehicles belonging to [restaurant] Staff and Customers are not permitted to park in this car park.” UKCPS's own video stills show my passenger exiting the vehicle, leaving the car park, and entering the restaurant, leaving shortly after with a bag.
On any ordinary reading, “vehicles belonging to [restaurant] staff and customers” means vehicles owned or driven by those staff or customers. It does not mean “any vehicle in which a [restaurant] customer happens to be a passenger”.
Under ordinary principles of construction and s.69 Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity in a consumer contract must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour.
It is therefore for UKCPS to prove that the vehicle belonged to or was being driven by a [restaurant] staff member or customer, no? If they can't (which they can't), they have no case.
3. Consideration period - the IPC Code of Practice, which is binding on UKCPS as an IPC member, requires operators to allow motorists a consideration period on arrival to locate, read, and decide whether to accept the terms, before any parking charge becomes payable. Ticketing within a couple of minutes of arrival is, on its face, inconsistent with that requirement.
I, as the driver, was recorded on site for less than three minutes in total. This is plainly within any reasonable consideration period. No contract can sensibly be said to arise “by conduct” before a motorist has even had a fair opportunity to read and consider the terms, particularly in a car park environment at night.
As for when a consideration period "ends", the 13.1 (g) of the IPA Code of Practice says five minutes: "The consideration period ends at the point where there is evidence that the driver has, by parking, accepted the terms, conditions and restrictions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or turning off the ignition of the vehicle and remaining stationary for more than 5 minutes."
Non-compliance with the relevant trade body Code was described by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis as a key factor when assessing the fairness and enforceability of private parking charges. An operator who disregards its own Code in such a heavy-handed way cannot then ask the court to enforce its charge.
4. No "parking" occurred. A sub-three-minute stop with the engine on for the collection of pre-ordered goods is loading/unloading and, per Jopson v Homeguard, is not “parking”.
Does this sound like a strong case?
The only letter I've received, aside from the money claim letter, is my appeal denial by UKCPS in 2023:
"Thank you for your appeal received on 08/10/2023 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered and our records show that the PCN was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking. I have reviewed your appeal and the comments you have made, The location where the vehicle was parked is private land where parking is permitted for the customers of [doctor's surgery] only.
Unfortunately, [restaurant] is not a facility at [doctor's surgery] and therefore, staff and customers of [restaurant] are not permitted to park in this car park. As you entered [restaurant] (I did not, my passenger did) at the time of the contravention the Terms and Conditions were breached and therefore, The driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.
Please find enclosed Photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at [car park]"
The signage:
https://ibb.co/Lh6nwnvS
Show Posts
