DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92853--------------------------------------------------
[PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking. [CBS]
DIR By: whynot
Date: October 4, 2025, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Today, a driver parked in a private parking area and received a
PCN. At the entrance, there was a large sign on the store window
stating that there is free customer parking. Based on the
driver’s understanding, it was also possible to park there with
a charge if not a customer – this was suggested by point (4) on
the sign. The driver was not a customer of the store.
It was unclear from the signage what rules applied to
non-customers. The driver believed that parking might be
available for a fee and intended to pay at the end of the stay,
but this was not explained anywhere.
After only a few minutes, a PCN was issued and left behind the
windscreen wiper.
The driver returned to the car about 15 minutes later and moved
it outside the parking area. Five minutes after that, the driver
called the store owner to clarify why the PCN had been issued,
since the driver had been willing to pay for parking. The owner,
however, responded rudely and explained that the parking was
only for customers, and they had noticed that the driver went to
a different store. Owner refused to accept any payment and told
that nothing can be done, but only PCN to be paid.
Since the PCN was issued for “Not Authorized” parking rather
than for non-payment, the key issue appears to be that the
signage did not clearly explain that the parking was strictly
for customers only. In fact, point (4) of the Welcome sign
creates further confusion, as it implies there are additional
terms for non-customers, but these are not clearly defined or
displayed.
What would be the best way for the driver to deal with this
situation? Should the driver appeal the PCN on the basis of
unclear signage, or is there another approach that might be more
effective? Or perhaps the driver completely misunderstood the
sign and should not have used the parking at all?
Appreciate your help in advance.
Welcome sign:
HTML https://ibb.co/Zz4xVbVh
Contractual agreement:
HTML https://ibb.co/nsq6hhKQ
Parking site:
HTML https://ibb.co/9HT2d5wq
PCN front:
HTML https://ibb.co/whYtLjyq
PCN back:
HTML https://ibb.co/Zzrbsz04
Issued by: CPS - Combined Parking Solutions.
#Post#: 92862--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: Dave65
Date: October 5, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Rather confusing as it says a charge for non customers of £10.
How is this to be collected?
Someone was obviously watching and could have told you.
#Post#: 92863--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 5, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, your defence appears straight forward; that the driver
simply accepted the offer of contract from the large sign facing
the main road - the right to park at the cost of £10 per hour.
There's no further requirement to enter into a separate contract
with the parking company as you already have contract with the
landowner.
Payment was offered but refused.
The client cannot be held responsible for the haphazard nature
of payment collection.
The driver remains happy to pay the £2.50 fee in keeping with
the initial contract offer.
#Post#: 92882--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: b789
Date: October 5, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us the whole of the front of the Notice to Driver (NtD)
that was left on the windscreen. you can redact your VRM is you
want but leave EVERYTHING else visible. It is highly likely that
the NtD is not fully compliant with PoFA para 7.
DO NOT appeal this yet. If they attempt to get the Keepers
details from the DVLA, they will one doing so unlawfully as
their signs are not in compliance with the IPC or PPSCoP codes.
Some observations as to why this would not stand a chance if it
were to ever be challenged in court:
Who is offering any contract? The signs at the site present two
competing sets of terms from two different sources. The CPS red
“WARNING – CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT” board purports to create a
contract in CPS’s name. The Richer Sounds sign simultaneously
sets its own parking rules and prices. With two contradictory
sets of “core” terms and two apparent “offerors”, there is no
single clear offer and no identifiable contracting party. This
prevents any contract from forming.
Conflicts between the two signs
1. User categories
[indent]• CPS sign: “Parking for customers of Richer Sounds only
whilst visiting our store” and references to CPS permit holders.
That is prohibitive to non-customers.
• Richer Sounds sign: distinguishes “Richer Sounds customers”
and “non-Richer Sounds customers” and then purports to allow
non-customers to park for a fee.[/indent]
These positions are mutually inconsistent (prohibition versus
paid permission).
2. Price and tariff
[indent]• CPS sign: asserts “right to park… at a cost of £100
per vehicle per 24h period (reduced to £60 if paid within 14
days)”.
• Richer Sounds sign: states “Any non-Richer Sounds customers
will be charged £10 per hour”, also “Maximum stay is 1 hour”,
and “Any vehicle left overnight will be charged £100.”[/indent]
These are irreconcilable price terms (£100 per 24h versus £10
per hour; different triggers for the £100 figure). A contract
cannot arise where the price term is uncertain.
3. Status of non-customers
[indent]• CPS: the “customers only”/“not authorised” language
forbids non-customer parking and offers no terms to them.
• Richer Sounds: implies non-customers may park for a
fee.[/indent]
This contradiction makes any alleged acceptance by a
non-customer impossible.
4. Payment mechanism
No sign explains how, where, or when a non-customer can pay the
£10 per hour. No machine, QR code, phone line, web address, or
instruction is shown. An “offer” that cannot be performed is not
a workable offer.
5. Alleged breach reason
The NtD cites “Not Authorised”. That is a prohibition, not a
term capable of contractual “breach for non-payment”. If parking
was truly available for a fee to non-customers, the breach would
be “failure to pay”. Using prohibitive wording underscores that
no contractual licence was offered to the driver. At most this
would be trespass, which only the landholder could pursue. A
parking operator generally lacks standing to claim trespass
damages.
6. Consideration/grace period
Ticketing within minutes of arrival demonstrates no reasonable
consideration period was afforded to read signs and leave. The
PPSCoP requires a minimum 5 minute period before enforcement.
7. Breach of signage rules (IPC CoP v9 and PPSCoP)
[indent]• IPC AOS logo: Absent from the CPS terms board,
contrary to PPSCoP requirements for operator identification and
scheme logo.
• IPC CoP v9 clause “Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions”
a. Sufficient number/visibility: the presence of two competing
sets of terms itself creates uncertainty about which sign
governs; clarity and adequacy are not achieved.
b. Inform all T&Cs: the CPS board and the Richer Sounds board
together fail to present a single coherent set of terms
applicable to motorists; key items such as payment method for
non-customers are missing.
c. Identify yourself as “the Creditor”: the CPS board does not
clearly identify the “Creditor” using that label. A footer with
company details is not the same as explicit creditor
identification required by the CoP.
d. Identify the amount of any charge and explain when it becomes
payable: the CPS board states £100 per 24 hours (reduced to £60
within 14 days) but simultaneously frames this as both a “cost
to park” and an enforcement charge; it does not clearly explain
when any contractual sum becomes payable versus when an
enforcement charge is issued. The Richer Sounds board states £10
per hour for non-customers but gives no trigger or mechanism of
payment. The result is non-compliance: core price/trigger terms
are unclear and contradictory.
e. Advise that if unpaid after 28 days keeper details will be
requested from DVLA, or may be requested immediately: the CPS
board does include wording to the effect that registered keeper
details may be requested from DVLA if a charge remains unpaid
after 28 days. However, satisfying (e) does not rescue the wider
non-compliance with (a)–(d) and with the PPSCoP logo/clarity
requirements.
• IPC CoP “Additional Signage must not contradict…”: the Richer
Sounds sign (additional/landowner sign) contradicts the CPS
terms board on who may park and at what price. This is a direct
breach.
8. Legal effect of the contradictions
Where core terms (identity of the creditor, price, and who is
permitted to park) are uncertain or in conflict, no contract can
be formed (CRA 2015). Any ambiguity is construed against the
drafting party. Prohibitive wording such as “customers only” and
“not authorised” negates any purported offer to non-customers,
precluding a contractual charge.
9. Keeper strategy (day 27 appeal after NtD)
Appeal as keeper on day 27 after the NtD. il the appeal to
info@combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk and CC yourself. Do not
identify the driver. Core grounds:
[indent]• No contract formed due to prohibitive and
contradictory signage.
• Conflicting price and permission terms between CPS and Richer
Sounds; no clear, transparent, or prominent single offer; no
payment method for any £10/hour tariff.
• Allegation is “Not Authorised”, which is not a contractual
breach scenario and confirms no offer was made to non-customers.
• No adequate consideration period before enforcement.
• Signage non-compliance with IPC CoP v9 (failure to identify
“the Creditor” clearly; failure to present all T&Cs;
contradictions; inadequate explanation of when any sum becomes
payable; breach of “additional signage must not contradict”) and
PPSCoP (missing IPC AOS logo and lack of clarity).
• Standing: put CPS to strict proof of landowner authority to
offer contracts and to litigate in its own name given that
Richer Sounds simultaneously sets different terms.
• PoFA: if they later try keeper liability, require strict
compliance with paras 7 and 8; any defect in the NtD (no period
of parking) and any failure to serve a fully compliant NtK
within the statutory window defeats keeper liability.[/indent]
#Post#: 92888--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: b789
Date: October 5, 2025, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Further to the above, on day 27 after the issue date of the NtD,
I advise you to send the following email to Dawn Marchington
(DPM) — dp@richersounds.com and also CC the following:
founder@richersounds.com, customerservices@richersounds.com and
also CC yourself. You should also send a hard copy by first
class post with a free certificate of posting from any post
office to Thomas Henry Letchford, Company Secretary, Richer
Sounds Ltd, Richer House, Hankey Place, London SE1 4BB:
--- Quote ---
> Letter of complaint and notice of potential liability
>
> To: The Company Secretary/Head of Customer Relations/Data
Protection Manager, Richer Sounds Limited
>
> Re: Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) Parking Charge – Site
signage conflicts and agency liability
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write as the Registered Keeper. A “Notice to Driver” (NtD)
was placed on my vehicle by CPS at [site] on [date]. I am making
a formal complaint and putting Richer Sounds on notice of
potential liability arising from CPS’s actions as your apparent
agent.
>
> [indent]1. Signage conflicts and no contractual offer
> Two competing sets of terms are displayed: (a) a CPS “Warning
– Contractual Agreement” board stating parking is for Richer
Sounds customers only/permit-holders, and (b) a Richer Sounds
sign that invites non-customers to park for £10/hour, limits
stays to one hour, and threatens £100 if left overnight. These
core terms and categories irreconcilably conflict with CPS’s own
board (which also purports to levy £100 per 24 hours). No single
transparent offer is made to non-customers; no payment mechanism
is provided. The NtD alleges “Not Authorised”, confirming the
signage is prohibitory rather than contractual.
>
> 2. Code of Practice non-compliance
> The CPS terms sign does not comply with the IPC Code of
Practice (v9) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
In particular: failure to present a coherent set of T&Cs,
contradictory “additional signage”, absence of a scheme logo on
the CPS board, and lack of clear identification of “the
Creditor” and when any sum becomes payable. CPS appears to be
enforcing in circumstances that breach the applicable Codes.
>
> 3. Agency and principal liability
> If CPS is acting on Richer Sounds’ authority, Richer Sounds is
responsible for its agent’s conduct. Should CPS commence
proceedings, I will apply under CPR 19.2 to add Richer Sounds as
a party and/or bring an additional claim under CPR Part 20 and
the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. I also reserve the
right to counterclaim for unlawful processing of my personal
data under UK GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018, given the lack of
lawful basis where no contract can arise from
contradictory/prohibitive signage.[/indent]
>
> Required actions (seven days):
> [indent]a) Confirm whether CPS acts under your authority at
this site and provide the name of the contracting entity within
the Richer Sounds group.
> b) Instruct CPS to cancel the NtD forthwith and confirm
cancellation to me in writing.
> c) Confirm preservation of all relevant evidence (CCTV, site
photographs, contracts, and signage records).
> d) Confirm that non-customer parking is either prohibited (and
remove/replace the contradictory invitation to pay) or, if
permitted, provide the complete and operable payment mechanism
and terms.
> e) Confirm that, absent a lawful basis, my personal data will
not be requested from DVLA or otherwise processed by your agent;
alternatively, restrict processing under Art. 18 UK GDPR pending
resolution.[/indent]
>
> If you decline to resolve this, this letter shall be relied
upon to demonstrate that Richer Sounds had notice of the defects
and exposure to liability but failed to act.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
> [Postal address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92925--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: whynot
Date: October 5, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your attention and for b789 — you have
provided more support and detail than I could have hoped for.
I have set a reminder to send both emails on the 31st of October
(the 27th day after the PCN was issued).
Here are the details you requested, I only redacted VRM and part
of customer reference no.
HTML https://ibb.co/xKWT6xMb
HTML https://ibb.co/9Pm95Sz
That is everything that was found behind the windscreen.
I have also clarified the timings with the driver:
- Arrival/parking at the site: 13:50
- PCN issued: 13:59
- Driver returned to the car: 14:06
- Driver left the site: 14:20
- Driver called the owner: 14:24
Given that 9 minutes passed between arrival and the issuance of
the PCN, would the point 'No adequate consideration period
before enforcement' still be valid to raise?
#Post#: 92940--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: Fluffykins
Date: October 5, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The tariff is £10 for an hour. Not per hour or part, not up to
one hour.
15 minutes isn't an hour
#Post#: 92954--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 6, 2025, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fluffykins link ---
>
> The tariff is £10 for an hour. Not per hour or part, not up to
one hour.
> 15 minutes isn't an hour
>
--- End Quote ---
The offer is definitely, "£10 per hour" - It doesn't make clear
if there is any pro-rata rate available - that missing info will
always favour the client (contra proferentem).
#Post#: 92957--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 6, 2025, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure there's any value to debating whether one should be
able to divide the £10 per hour into chunks... The parking
company's argument is on the basis that no paid parking is
available at all.
Keeping it simple and sticking to the arguments that the signs
conflict would be sensible in my view, as per b789's suggestion.
#Post#: 92980--------------------------------------------------
Re: [PCN]Parking on private property with customer parking.
[CBS]
DIR By: b789
Date: October 6, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't dwell on the minutiae. The simple facts are that there is
no Keeper liability or evidence that any contract was formed
with the unknown (to them) driver.
AL the stuff about CRA 2015 breaches is secondary and irrelevant
at this stage. On the 27th day after the date of the alleged
contravention, you submit your appeal by email to
info@combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk and CC yourself. You do not
use post for anything.
Under no circumstances are you to identify the driver. There is
no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking firm and you should decline.
Whenever referring to this in any correspondence, you only refer
to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only
"the driver did this or that".
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1