So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a "contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually parking there.
Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of a property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their parking.
In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:
"Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court. No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of time."
This wording is important because it suggests the following:
1. Nature of the Offer
The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no offer is made to them in the first place.
In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no acceptance, and therefore no contract.
2. Prohibitive Notice
The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case, parking by non-residents).
In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.
If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically limited to actual losses).
3. Case Law Support
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual relationship formed with a non-resident.
Conclusion:
• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual relationship because it offers parking to residents under certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the rules).
• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no contract.
In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.
