Free Traffic Legal Advice

My appeal;

The registered keeper of the above vehicle writes to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice referenced above. No contract was formed with the driver on the date in question. There was no clear or visible signage at the entrance to the land to indicate that it was private property subject to parking terms and conditions. In the absence of prominent entrance signage, the driver was not given reasonable notice of any contractual terms prior to parking. Furthermore, the signage relied upon in your photographic evidence appears not to be permanently affixed and is shown merely leaning against the communal wooden bin area. The registered keeper has since inspected the location and confirms that the sign was not present at the time the vehicle was parked and is not currently present at the site. The fact that the sign was not fixed in place and is not ordinarily present raises serious concerns regarding its legitimacy, permanence, and whether it was genuinely installed as part of a compliant signage scheme. The temporary nature of the sign as shown in your evidence gives rise to concern that it may have been positioned solely for enforcement purposes at the time the PCN was issued. This matter will be formally raised with the land managing agents, namely SIPPI Ltd and The Hyde Group, who are understood to have responsibility for the land in question. Given that: * There was no clear entrance signage, * The alleged terms were not prominently displayed, * The sign shown is not permanently installed, * The sign was not present at the time of parking and is not present now, * The incident occurred during hours of darkness (approximately 03:14), further reducing visibility, it is denied that any contractual agreement was entered into by the driver. In the absence of clear, prominent, and properly installed signage capable of forming a legally binding contract, this charge is unfounded and must be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, the registered keeper requires: 1. Strict proof of the signage layout in place on the date in question, 2. Dated photographic evidence showing the sign securely installed at the material time, 3. A site map showing the location of all signage, 4. Evidence of your legal standing to issue and pursue parking charges at this location. Please confirm cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice or provide the necessary information to enable independent adjudication. The registered keeper does not consent to any processing of personal data beyond that required for the purposes of this appeal. Yours faithfully, Registered Keeper

Any update?

Help guys?

With what? Once you show us a draft of your proposed IAS appeal we can advise. You will want to include your signage map and photos to back this up showing there are no signs where claimed.

This is what CPM has replied with: "The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 08/05/2026.
The ticket was issued on 07/05/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has parked outside of a designated parking area/parking bay.

The appellant has parked within clear view of our sign and there is clear signage throughout the car park. This can be seen in the attached document ‘50977400'.

Signage clearly states "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY. NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS / YELLOW LINES / PAVED / HATCHED OR LANDSCAPED AREAS".

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is parked within a designated parking area/bay, prior to parking within a restricted area.

1. Signage

The appellant states that there was no entrance signage or nearby contractual signage and that the nearest sign was approximately 120 metres away. We do not accept that the signage at the site is inadequate. Signage is displayed throughout the development to communicate the parking terms and conditions, including the requirement to park wholly within a marked bay. The appellant's annotated site plan reflects their own assessment and does not demonstrate that the terms were incapable of being brought to motorists' attention.

2. Missing signs and previous PCN

The appellant refers to missing signs and a previously cancelled Parking Charge Notice. Each Parking Charge Notice is assessed on its own merits, and a previous cancellation has no bearing on this case. The appellant has not shown that the signage present on the date of the contravention was insufficient to communicate the parking terms.

3. Resident permit

We acknowledge that the appellant is a resident and held a valid electronic permit. However, a permit authorises parking subject to compliance with the site's parking terms. The Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay, not because it was unauthorised.

4. Tenancy agreement

The appellant states that their tenancy agreement does not require parking within marked bays. The Parking Charge Notice is issued under the parking terms applicable to the private land and is not based on the tenancy agreement.

5. Hyde Housing

The appellant's correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect the operator's authority to manage parking at the site or the requirement for motorists to comply with the displayed parking terms.

6. Appeal response

While the initial rejection focused on the reason for issue, all of the appellant's representations have now been fully considered. None of the points raised demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly.

By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice."

What should I reply with or should i submit straight to the Adjudicator?

do you think this is okay:

- The operator states that I parked "within clear view of our sign". However, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate:

which specific sign they rely upon;
the distance between that sign and my vehicle;
that the sign was clearly visible from the driver's position before parking; or
that the sign was capable of being read before any alleged contract was formed.

Instead, the operator makes a general assertion that signage exists throughout the development. This is insufficient to establish that the specific contractual terms were effectively communicated at the location where my vehicle was parked.

- The Civil Enforcement Officer's own photographs show that the sign relied upon is not permanently affixed to a post, wall or other structure. Instead, it appears to be leaning against the bin storage area.

A sign that is simply propped against a structure cannot reasonably be relied upon as permanent contractual signage. It is capable of being moved, repositioned or removed at any time.

This directly contradicts the operator's assertion that there was clear and adequate signage throughout the site.

I explained in my appeal that there is no entrance sign when entering this section of the residential development.

- The operator has not addressed this point or produced any evidence of an entrance sign.

Instead, they simply state that signage exists throughout the development. That does not establish that motorists were given adequate notice of the parking terms before parking.

- I supplied an annotated site plan showing that several signs shown on the operator's layout have been removed.

The operator dismisses this as "my own assessment" but has not produced contemporaneous photographs proving those signs were actually present on the date of the alleged contravention.

If the operator relies upon a site plan, it must accurately reflect the signage that existed on the material date.

-The operator has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that:

the contractual terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention;
the sign relied upon was permanently installed and prominently positioned;
there was appropriate entrance signage;
the signage shown on their site plan accurately reflected the signage present on the date of the alleged contravention; or
a legally binding parking contract incorporating the alleged restriction was formed.

Given these deficiencies, I respectfully request that the Independent Appeals Service allows this appeal and directs UK Car Park Management Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Thank you i have responded with this:

1. Signage
The operator states that "there is clear signage throughout the development" and that I was "within clear view of our sign."
I do not accept this assertion.
The operator has not identified the specific sign upon which they rely, nor have they demonstrated:
•   the distance between my vehicle and that sign;
•   that the sign was visible from the driver's position before parking;
•   that there was an unobstructed line of sight; or
•   that the sign could reasonably be read before any alleged contract was formed.
My annotated site plan demonstrates that numerous signs shown on the operator's layout were not present on the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, there is no entrance sign when entering this section of the estate, and the nearest remaining sign is approximately 120 metres from where my vehicle was parked.
The operator dismisses my evidence as "my own assessment" but provides no contemporaneous evidence to show that the missing signs were in fact present.
Additionally, the Civil Enforcement Officer's own photographs show that the sign relied upon is not permanently affixed. It appears to be leaning against the bin storage area rather than securely mounted. A sign that is not permanently installed cannot reasonably be relied upon as fixed contractual signage, as it is capable of being moved or repositioned at any time.
The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that the alleged contractual terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists.
________________________________________
2. Missing Signs and Previous PCN
The operator states that a previous Parking Charge Notice is irrelevant.
I agree that each case should be considered on its own merits.
However, my reference to the previous Parking Charge Notice was not relied upon as evidence that this charge should automatically be cancelled. It was raised because it demonstrates that there have been previous concerns regarding enforcement at this location.
The important issue is that my annotated site plan identifies numerous signs that are no longer present. The operator has not rebutted this evidence with dated photographs showing that those signs existed on the material date.
________________________________________
3. Resident Permit
The operator accepts that:
•   I am a resident; and
•   I held a valid electronic resident permit.
This confirms that I was authorised to park on the estate.
The operator states that a permit is subject to compliance with the site's parking terms.
However, the operator has produced no evidence that these terms were adequately communicated at the location where my vehicle was parked.
________________________________________
4. Tenancy Agreement
The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice is not based on my tenancy agreement.
This misses the point.
My tenancy agreement governs my rights as a resident.
The tenancy agreement grants me the right to park and does not require me to display a permit or comply with UK Car Park Management Ltd's parking scheme. It contains no provision permitting UKCPM to impose additional contractual obligations or financial penalties upon residents.
Accordingly, my tenancy agreement takes precedence over any subsequently introduced parking terms. The operator cannot unilaterally override my existing contractual rights by placing signs around the estate.
As my right to park arises from my tenancy and not from any contract offered by UKCPM, the parking terms relied upon by the operator are irrelevant and do not apply to my existing rights as a resident.
________________________________________
5. Hyde Housing
The operator states that my correspondence with Hyde Housing does not affect their authority.
This is not the point I raised.
I contacted Hyde to establish whether tenants had entered into any parking agreement incorporating UKCPM's parking terms.
Hyde confirmed that there is no such agreement with tenants.
The operator has therefore produced no evidence that residents have contractually agreed to be bound by UKCPM's parking terms beyond whatever lawful rights already exist under their tenancy agreements.
________________________________________
6. Appeal Response
The operator states that all my representations have now been considered.
However, their response still fails to address the substance of my appeal.
The operator has not produced evidence demonstrating:
•   that the nearest sign was visible from where I parked;
•   that the sign was permanently installed;
•   that an entrance sign existed;
•   that the missing signs identified in my evidence were actually present;
•   that the location where I parked was clearly identified as being subject to the alleged restriction.
Instead, the operator relies upon general statements that signage exists throughout the development.
General assertions are not evidence.

I would point out clearly and concisely that, in law, there is no requirement for you to form a contract with the operator when your tenancy agreement already provides you with the right to park - therefore, technically, every single one of the operator's evidence points are totally irrelevant because I simply do not have a legally binding contract with them in a circumstance where I already have the right to park.