I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
Summary of key facts
• Countrywide Parking issued a Parking Charge Notice on 27 August 2025 at Brandon Court alleging the vehicle was parked in a visitor bay “not displaying a valid permit”.
• A valid visitor permit was displayed on the nearside of the dashboard within the windscreen.
• The operator’s own offside photo shows the permit faintly visible on the nearside, and a front-on distance photo cannot possibly confirm what was displayed.
• There is no contractual requirement (on signage) for a permit to be on a particular side of the dashboard; only that a valid permit be displayed “in the windscreen”.
• Had the attendant undertaken reasonable observations (e.g. walked to the nearside), they would have seen the permit plainly. The allegation is therefore unfounded.
Burden of proof
The operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:
1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage
Provide a detailed site plan of Brandon Court showing the placement of every sign and legible contemporaneous images of the exact signs in situ on the material date. The operator must demonstrate that the signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) then in force, including requirements on prominence and communication of key terms.
In particular, if the operator now asserts any requirement about the positioning of a permit (e.g. nearside/offside/centre or “hologram fully visible at all times”), that purported term must be shown as a clear, prominent, contractual term on the external signage. Any attempt to rely on wording buried in a back-of-permit letter or post-hoc “guidance” is irrelevant to contract formation at the point of parking (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 requires clear and prominent terms on the signage).
2. Strict proof of landowner authority
Provide a valid, contemporaneous, and
unredacted contract or lease flowing from the landowner authorising the operator to manage parking at Brandon Court, to issue PCNs, and to take legal action in its own name. I refer to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which sets mandatory minimum requirements, including:
• landowner identity and boundary map;
• duration and scope of authority;
• detailed parking terms/conditions and any exemptions;
• enforcement methods;
• responsibility for consents; and
• operator obligations and appeals procedure.
These are conditions precedent to issuing a PCN. Any redactions must not obscure these items. The document must be dated and signed by identifiable authorised signatories. Without strict proof of landowner authority, no claim can succeed (
VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186]).
3. Strict proof regarding the enforcement process and observations
This site is patrolled. Provide the full contemporaneous enforcement log for this PCN (time-stamped observation notes, all photographs taken, and the attendant’s written reason for not inspecting from the nearside where the permit was displayed). The operator’s chosen angles (front-on at distance and offside through glass/reflectivity) do not prove absence of a permit; in fact, the offside image shows the permit on the nearside. The allegation that the permit was not “clearly displayed” is contradicted by the operator’s own evidence and by a subsequent photo taken immediately after parking which shows the permit on the dashboard.
If the operator relies on “hologram visibility”, they must identify the contractual term on the signage (see Point 1) and explain why the attendant failed to perform reasonable, symmetric observations to confirm what was displayed.
4. Strict proof of PoFA compliance (if relying on keeper liability)
If the operator seeks keeper liability, provide strict proof that the Notice to Keeper fully complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, including all mandatory wording and time limits. Any deviation renders keeper liability unavailable.
5. Strict proof of posting evidence (where relevant)
Where a postal notice is relied upon, provide evidence that the notice was posted (not merely generated) in time for it to be given within the relevant period, per PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2. Operators must retain records of posting dates (including where a mail consolidator is used).
Application of basic contractual principles
• No breach: A valid permit was displayed “in the windscreen” as required by the signage. There is no term requiring a specific side of the dashboard. The operator’s evidence does not prove a contravention; it merely reflects selective/insufficient viewpoints.
• Transparency: If the operator seeks to rely on additional display conditions (e.g. a hologram must be fully visible from all angles), such onerous terms must be prominent on the signage at the point of contract. They are not. Any ambiguity must be construed against the drafter.
• Reasonable observations: An attendant must take fair, reasonable observations. A failure to look from the nearside where the permit was in plain view is an unreasonable enforcement failure; motorists should not be penalised for an operative’s choice of a poor vantage point.
About IAS assessment
If the assessor is legally qualified, they will recognise that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC) and clear, prominent signage terms (Beavis), and absent strict PoFA compliance where keeper liability is asserted, this charge cannot be upheld. They will also note the operator’s own evidence tends to support that a permit was displayed.
Conclusion
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety. The operator has not proved a breach on the evidence; the signage contains no requirement as to which side of the dashboard a permit must be placed; and reasonable observations would have confirmed the valid permit on the nearside. I require full, strict proof of every matter set out above. Failing that, this appeal must be allowed.
Evidence bundle (for ease of reference)
• Operator photos (front-on distance; offside through windscreen) — permit faintly visible on nearside.
• My photo taken immediately after parking — permit visible on dashboard.
• Signage image at Brandon Court relied upon by operator — no side-specific requirement.
• Context images illustrating dashboard geometry and visibility from offside.
