Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal against this Parking Charge Notice on multiple grounds. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be identifying the driver. There is no legal obligation to do so and no adverse inference can lawfully be drawn from this.

GROUND 1: NO KEEPER LIABILITY – NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 (PoFA)

The operator is attempting to pursue me as keeper for an alleged contractual parking charge. To do so, it must comply in full with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) in this case is not compliant, so there can be no keeper liability.

In particular:

(a) No “period of parking” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a)
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images of the vehicle’s number plate at the estate entrance, with timestamps showing the time of entry and exit to the estate. These images do not show any parking at all, still less a “period of parking”. Moving in front of an ANPR camera, travelling on an estate road, finding an address, turning around, loading/unloading, or briefly stopping for direction checks is not the same as “parking”.

The statute requires the Notice to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. Recording only an entry time and an exit time at a camera position that does not show any parking location is not specification of a “period of parking” within the meaning of PoFA. It merely shows the total time the vehicle was somewhere within a large estate, engaged in an undefined activity. The NtK therefore fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a).

(b) No compliant “invitation to keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(e)
The NtK does not contain the mandatory wording inviting the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or to identify the driver and pass the notice on to them. The statute prescribes specific information that “must” be included. A notice which fails to include a fully compliant invitation to keeper as set out in paragraph 9(2)(e) cannot create keeper liability. Partial or approximate wording is not sufficient.

(c) Other omissions and defects
From its overall content, layout and wording, the NtK fails to deliver the statutory information in the prescribed manner. It does not clearly and unambiguously:

– Set out a proper period of parking,
– Specify the creditor in the manner required by paragraph 9(2)(h),
– Warn the keeper in the terms required by paragraph 9(2)(f) about the conditions under which the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper.

PoFA is a strict statutory regime: it is the only route by which a private parking company can ever hold a registered keeper liable for a driver’s alleged contractual charge. The operator has chosen to issue a defective NtK and has therefore failed to engage Schedule 4. Consequently, the only person who could in principle be liable is the unknown driver. As I have not been shown to be the driver and will not be identified as such, I cannot be liable.

The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

GROUND 2: NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARKING OR OF ANY BREACH

The only “evidence” relied upon is two ANPR photographs of the vehicle’s number plate at the entrance to a private estate, with timestamps 09:55 and 10:06. The operator asserts that the vehicle “remained on site for 10 minutes with no permit”. That is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence.

The images show no vehicle parked in a bay, stopped on land clearly subject to the operator’s terms, or even stationary. They show the vehicle passing a camera at the boundary of an estate. The operator has provided no map, plan or contemporaneous photographs showing:

– Where within the estate the vehicle is alleged to have been parked;
– Whether that location is actually part of the land under CPM’s management;
– Whether any CPM sign with full terms and conditions was positioned so that it could be read and accepted from that location.

On a residential estate, a vehicle could easily spend around ten minutes lawfully driving in, locating a particular address, stopping briefly to load/unload or to allow a passenger to attend at a property, and then driving back out, without ever “parking” in the sense required to form a contractual parking charge. This is particularly so where a driver is carrying out a short professional visit to a housebound patient, as in this case, which is in the nature of loading/unloading and ancillary to access rather than “parking” as contemplated by the signage.

By relying solely on boundary ANPR timestamps, CPM has not discharged the burden of proof to show that any parking actually took place on land subject to CPM’s terms, still less that the driver breached those terms. In the absence of clear evidence of a contravention, the charge cannot stand.

GROUND 3: FORBIDDING AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE – NO CONTRACT WITH A NON-PERMIT HOLDER

The signage at the estate is forbidding in nature and incapable of forming a contract with a motorist who does not already hold a valid CPM e-permit.

The internal sign wording (as photographed) prominently states that all vehicles must hold a valid UK CPM e-permit. The entrance sign similarly indicates that only residents and permit holders are authorised. For a visitor or other non-permit holder, the sign does not make any positive offer such as “you may park on these terms if you pay £100 in the event of breach”. Instead, it tells the motorist that they are not permitted to park at all unless they already have a permit.

A sign which states, in substance, “Permit holders only. No unauthorised parking” is a prohibitive notice. It does not contain an offer of parking to a non-permit holder that can be accepted by conduct. A person who parks contrary to such a notice would, at most, be a trespasser. Trespass is a matter for the landowner, and only the landowner can claim for damages for trespass. A parking company in CPM’s position has no standing to demand contractual charges from a trespasser where no contract was ever formed.

This analysis is consistent with county court authority which has found, on comparable “permit holders only / no unauthorised parking” wording, that the signage is forbidding and no contract is formed with a person who is not permitted to park.

Furthermore, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that a contract could somehow arise, CPM has failed to show that:

– The entrance signage meets the requirements for clear entrance signs in the applicable IPC Code of Practice and the current Private Parking Single Code of Practice;
– The driver would have been given a fair opportunity to read and understand the full terms before any alleged contravention occurred, particularly where the key terms are on a small sign mounted parallel to the road on a lamppost some distance into the estate.

In summary, there was no contractual offer to a non-permit holder, no clear acceptance, and no consideration moving between the parties. No contract can be said to have been formed with the driver, so no contractual parking charge is owed.

GROUND 4: CONSIDERATION PERIOD, SHORT PROFESSIONAL VISIT AND REASONABLENESS

The evidence shows only that the vehicle was somewhere within the estate for around ten minutes. On a residential estate with complex addressing, it is entirely reasonable for a driver making a professional home visit to a housebound patient to need this sort of time to:

– Enter the estate;
– Locate the specific address within an unfamiliar layout;
– Stop briefly to attend at the property and return to the vehicle;
– Safely exit the estate.

The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and the previous IPC Code of Practice, both recognise that there must be a reasonable “consideration period” on arrival, during which a motorist must be allowed time to read signs, decide whether to stay, and, if they decide not to or cannot comply, leave without incurring a charge. In addition, there must be a reasonable grace period at the end of any stay to leave the site.

Where a motorist is not even offered any paid parking option (because the site is “permit holders only”), and where the operator cannot show the vehicle parked in any bay or specific area under its control, issuing a £100 charge for a total site time of roughly ten minutes is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the spirit and purpose of these requirements. In effect, CPM is penalising the mere presence of a vehicle on an estate road for a short period, even where that presence is for a legitimate and socially valuable reason (a medical visit to a housebound resident).

GROUND 5: ANPR OPERATION, LAND DEFINITION AND DATA USE

The ANPR camera is positioned at the entrance to the estate, such that it captures every vehicle that passes in or out, irrespective of whether it ever enters a CPM-controlled parking area or stops at all. The operator has not produced any plan or evidence clearly defining:

– The exact “relevant land” on which its terms apply;
– The boundaries of any CPM-managed parking area;
– How the ANPR deployment is restricted to vehicles that are actually using CPM’s car park, rather than vehicles simply using the estate roads.

Private parking operators are under an obligation, both under the IPC Code of Practice and under data protection law, to ensure that ANPR is used in a proportionate and targeted way, and that motorists are given clear information at the point of data capture. CPM has not demonstrated that any appropriate notices were visible at the camera location explaining the use of ANPR and the extent of the controlled land.

In the circumstances of this case, CPM has obtained and processed my personal data from the DVLA on the basis of nothing more than a bare inference from two boundary ANPR images, without proof that any contravention occurred on land actually subject to CPM’s terms. That is not a proper use of DVLA data.

CONCLUSION

To summarise:

– The NtK is not compliant with the mandatory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, so no keeper liability can arise. I was not the driver and will not be identified as such.
– The operator has provided no evidence that the vehicle was ever parked in breach of any terms. The ANPR images merely show movement past an estate boundary camera.
– The signage is forbidding and permits only vehicles with a valid CPM permit, so no contract is formed with a non-permit holder. At most, any issue would be trespass, which CPM has no standing to pursue.
– The brief presence on the estate is entirely consistent with a short professional visit to a housebound resident and falls within a reasonable consideration period and overall time to enter, attend, and leave.
– The deployment and use of ANPR in this case is overbroad and unsupported by evidence of a contravention on clearly defined land under CPM’s control.

For all of the above reasons, I invite the Adjudicator to allow this appeal and to direct that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Its mainly just pictures of their signs and just the emails back and forth

https://ibb.co/xqh5JynR
https://ibb.co/Y73YDyLB
https://ibb.co/vxCJgSX5
https://ibb.co/VYKL17pj
https://ibb.co/GfBFZKr4
https://ibb.co/rKwGnkQ0
https://ibb.co/d0rTZj02
https://ibb.co/fwKCB2d
https://ibb.co/pvfyFPxc
https://ibb.co/p6PQyZZq