Here is the final version I went with, and also the supporting photograph
Photograph of numbered bays next to VP spot -
https://i.ibb.co/r2LmLJxc/Numbered-spaces-next-to-VP-spaces.pngI selected "Registered keeper" for appeal and confirmed my details only as the keepers, then chose "Other" for my appeal reason.
The vehicle was parked in a bay clearly marked “VP” while visiting a resident. The driver was an invited visitor to a lawful resident of the estate. Other bays are individually numbered and obviously reserved for specific flats. I have attached a photograph showing the spaces which are allocated by number to specific residents. It is entirely reasonable to understand “VP” as a visitor parking bay. There is no information anywhere on site explaining a visitor-permit scheme or how a visitor could obtain a permit.
The parking sign states that “Parking is permitted for permit holders only when parking wholly in their allocated bays and displaying a valid permit clearly within the windscreen at all times.” That is a prohibitive sign: it does not make any offer at all to a driver who does not already hold a permit, and it says nothing about visitor bays or visitor permits. A sign which simply forbids parking without a permit cannot create any contractual liability for a non-permit holder. On its own wording, the sign is incapable of forming a contractual agreement with a visitor who does not already possess some undefined permit. In those circumstances, the only possible allegation would be trespass, which only the landowner could pursue, not UKCPS.
No contract could have been formed as UKCPS have not evidenced any period of parking beyond the obligatory minimum consideration period. A driver is entitled to enter, locate a space, read and consider the terms and then decide whether to stay. The Notice to Keeper only shows a single “time of issue” and no entry and exit times, no observation period, and no evidence that the vehicle was stationary for longer than the minimum consideration period allowed by the applicable Code of Practice. Without a recorded period of parking beyond that initial consideration period, UKCPS cannot show that the driver had a fair chance to read the terms, agree to them and then breach them.
As Keeper, I challenge any attempt to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper does not “specify the period of parking” at all; it gives a single timestamp only. A moment in time is not a period of parking. Because the statutory wording has not been met, UKCPS cannot transfer any alleged liability from the unidentified driver to me as Keeper. I will not be naming the driver, and there is no legal obligation on me to do so.
To conclude, (1) the “VP” marking reasonably indicates visitor parking; (2) there is no clear or prominent information about any visitor-permit requirement; (3) the sign is prohibitive and incapable of creating a contract with a non-permit holder; (4) no period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period has been evidenced, so no contract could have been formed or breached; and (5) the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA because it does not specify any period of parking, so I, as Keeper, cannot be held liable.
I invite UKCPS to cancel the charge on these grounds.
I will try again with the property managers. I had asked my friend to email as well on my behalf, so I'll check whether he's done that, and if not I'll give him the souped-up version!
Thank you again, b789, for your help and advice. The draft is 99% based on the factual points you listed. That's a good point re. their internal appeals process! Seeing as UKCPS are part of IPC, I understand the next stage of their process is the Independent Appeals Service, but it sounds like "Independent" is questionably used in this case!
