Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received a Parking Charge Notice from CPM for parking in a private estate. The photos just show the driver entering and exiting the estate, not parked up. The time shows as 10 minutes, however this will be plus some seconds as the times show 09:55 and 10:06. Can this is fought?

I dont have pictures of the signage at the estate unfortunately as the driver did not take any, nor would they be in a rush/or have any need to go back there. Although would be doable in the next couple days. The link is to the fine received

https://ibb.co/fdD3VYNF

Apologies, I have obscured the dates (but not the times) as the driver was doing health care visits at the time. I can confirm the date was in the last 2 weeks, and the notice sent on the 5th November.

I got some pictures of the signs at the estate, and also reuploaded the letter with dates showing.

The driver was vaccinating a housebound patient on the estate.

https://ibb.co/1YptJgZn
https://ibb.co/xKD1zy88
https://ibb.co/zhBMBL2n

Aside from the PoFA failures, the sign does not create a contractual offer to a non-permit holder that could be accepted simply by remaining on the land beyond any consideration period.

1. The sign is prohibitive for anyone without a valid UK CPM e-permit.
The very first term states that all vehicles must hold a valid e-permit. A sign that tells a motorist they are not permitted to park at all unless they already hold a permit does not make a contractual offer to non-permit holders. The courts have repeatedly held that such wording is forbidding and therefore incapable of forming a contract with someone who is forbidden from parking.

2. The “By entering or remaining…” paragraph is conditional on there being an actual contractual offer.
If the only “offer” on the sign is “you may park here only if you already have a valid permit”, there is no offer made to a non-permit holder. Contractual liability cannot arise where the motorist is a trespasser rather than a party to contract terms.

3. Liability wording is aimed at the driver, which in itself is not an offer capable of acceptance; it attempts to impose obligations rather than extending a clear offer with consideration and acceptance.

Conclusion:
For a driver without a valid CPM permit, this sign does not make a contractual offer. Remaining on the land beyond the consideration period cannot create a contract because none was offered to them. At most, a non-permit holder would be a trespasser—only the landowner (not the parking company) could pursue them, and only for nominal damages.

Is that entrance sign on the brick pillar you have shown us, the only entrance sign? Is there any other entrance sign that otherwise confirms to the signage requirements of Schedule 1 of the IPC CoP at page 27?

Is the parking sign facing oncoming traffic? Or is it parallel to the road meaning that it is only readable if the driver pulls up directly alongside it?

Any initial appeal will be rejected and there is very little chance of a secondary appeal to the IAS kangaroo court being successful either. you are dealing with corrupt firms who will take this all the way to a county court claim. That is a good thing because they will never go all the way through with their mendacious charade as they know they would get a spanking in court.

However, they persist this way because they rely on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. Any claim is either struck out or discontinued. Of the very few that make it all the way to a hearing, most are won.

For now, I advise you to simply appeal with the following and when it is rejected, I will give you an IAS appeal you can use.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CPM have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Hi, the appeal has been rejected with the following commentary

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 10 minutes with no permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.