Of course you appeal it. however, any appeal is going to be rejected, no matter how logical you explain it to them. Additionally, as CPM are IPC members, there is little hope that an appeal to the IAS will be successful.
However, as we are now relying on the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP), it may be worth trying, just to see if there is any change. I doubt it, but I love to be proved wrong.
The initial appeal should just be as follows:
Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice (PCN No. [Insert PCN Number])
This is an appeal by the Registered Keeper for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number]. The PCN has been issued unfairly because of the following reasons:
1. Inadequate Signage and Breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The signage at the site is inadequate and fails to comply with the Single Code of Practice (October 2024) section 3.4. The only sign is attached to a gate, positioned below windscreen height, parallel to the direction of travel, and features text in a tiny font, making it impossible for drivers to see or read the terms upon entering the car park.
The relevant section of the SCoP (October 2024) states:
"3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises."
The signage at the site fails to meet these requirements, as no clear entrance sign was present to alert the driver of the changes, and there were no repeater signs displaying the new terms within the premises. As a result, no contract was formed between the driver and UK-CPM.
2. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, as it does not invite the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Without full compliance with PoFA, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for this charge.
3. Lack of Proof of Driver Identity
As the registered keeper, I am under no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. It is the operator's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence that the keeper and the driver are the same individual. No such evidence has been provided, and therefore, as no inference or assumptions can be made, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.
In light of these significant failings, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled immediately.
