Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference Number]

To: UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 18th December 2024 in relation to vehicle registration [Insert Vehicle Registration]. The PCN alleges "Failure to pay for the duration of stay" at Crystal Palace Park Penge Gate Car Park on 14th December 2024. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and dispute this PCN on the following grounds:

---

1. The Allegation Is Incorrect

The PCN alleges that the driver "failed to pay for the duration of stay." This is factually incorrect. The driver paid for a two-hour parking session beginning at 15:39, and the vehicle exited the car park at 16:44, well within the paid-for duration. The driver therefore fulfilled the parking payment obligation as required by the terms and conditions.

If the intention of the PCN is to penalise the driver for exiting the car park after the stated closure time, then the contravention should have been worded accordingly. The current allegation misrepresents the situation and is invalid under these circumstances.

---

2. Conflicting and Confusing Signage

Upon inspecting the car park signage in daylight, I observed conflicting terms regarding parking conditions:

1. One sign states: "Car Parks are opened by 7.30am every day. You must remove your car before the closing time displayed above. After this time there is no provision to unlock the gates until the next morning."

2. Another sign states: "No overnight parking permitted. You must remove your vehicle before the car park closing times displayed - See additional information signage throughout the car park."

The driver did not park overnight nor breach any parking duration terms. Furthermore, while these signs mention car park closing times, there is no clear integration of these terms with the payment system. The payment machine allowed the driver to pay for two hours without restriction or notification that the parking duration would be curtailed by the car park closure at 16:30. This creates an unreasonable expectation that the driver would be aware of unstated restrictions.

---

3. Lack of Clarity and Prominent Display of Closing Times

The car park signage does not sufficiently communicate the implications of car park closure in an unambiguous manner. The absence of illuminated signs in low-light conditions (the incident occurred in the evening/twilight) makes it unreasonable to expect drivers to locate and understand additional rules displayed elsewhere in the car park.

The IPC Code of Practice requires that key terms must be "clearly and prominently displayed." In this case, the lack of prominent and illuminated signage, combined with the misleading payment system, fails to meet this standard.

---

4. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss or Legitimate Interest

The vehicle exited the car park at 16:44, a mere 14 minutes after the stated closing time of 16:30. The driver had already paid for a two-hour parking session, and there was no obstruction, damage, or loss of revenue caused to the operator during this time. As such, the £100 charge is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) or a legitimate interest.

While the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld the enforceability of parking charges, it did so under specific circumstances where the charge was deemed necessary to manage parking space turnover and serve the operator's legitimate interest. In this case, the circumstances are fundamentally different:

• There was no commercial or operational impact caused by the brief overstay, particularly as the car park was unmanned and the gates/barriers remained open.

• The operator has suffered no quantifiable loss, as the parking session was fully paid for and the car park was not obstructed for any incoming users.

• The car park's terms and conditions explicitly refer to "overnight parking" being prohibited, not to vehicles exiting shortly after closing time.

The lack of a genuine pre-estimate of loss, combined with the absence of a compelling legitimate interest in penalising drivers for such minor infractions, renders this charge unenforceable. This aligns with the reasoning in Beavis where the Court stated that a penalty charge must strike a balance between enforcement and fairness. In this case, no such balance exists, and the charge is punitive rather than proportionate.

---

5. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice. UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM) has failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and as a result, there can be no keeper liability.

Specifically, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

"a statement that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and inviting the keeper—

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

The NtK issued in this case fails to explicitly include an invitation for the keeper to pay the parking charge. Without this key element, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and CPM cannot transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver to me as the keeper.

Since CPM has chosen to pursue the charge under PoFA, strict compliance with all the requirements of Schedule 4 is mandatory. A failure to meet any of these requirements invalidates the claim against the keeper.

---

Request for Evidence

Should you reject this appeal, I request the following evidence to substantiate your claim:

1. Proof of payment records showing the time and amount paid by the driver.

2. Photographic evidence of all signage in the car park, including visibility and clarity during hours of darkness.

3. Evidence demonstrating that the driver failed to meet the terms and conditions explicitly stated on the signs.

4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper, with an explanation of how it complies fully with Schedule 4 of PoFA.

---

Given the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled, as the driver fulfilled their obligation to pay for parking, and the alleged contravention is unsupported by the facts or evidence.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]