Forbidden signage PCN

[DJon]

Do I have grounds to dispute this PCN?

The Driver was a different person to the registered keeper.

The driver entered the car park on 8 November to go to Majestic Wine based on the large signs at entry that say "Majestic Customer Parking" and "Parking Anytime Fitness" (attached).

The driver then mistakenly parked in the wrong place and went into the store. A PCN from CPM (attached) was received by the registered keeper on 15 November (ie within 14 days) with an issued date of 9 November.

After the PCN was received by the registered keeper we returned to the car park on foot.

From the PCN and our visit we add the following additional facts:

There are CMP signs as you drive in (attached, and all identical) and there is also one on the bay that the car was parked in. The writing on the floor of those bays is fading obscured when vehicles are parked there. There are also bays at the other end of the car park that are marked for Majestic Wine customers. The PCN controlled spaces use seperate bays from the Gym and Majestic spaces.

Why I am considering fighting it:

1) The sign is a prohibition from parking sign without permit. And arguably there is no contract, just a possible landholder issue for tresspass similar to the Horizon case. https://parking-prankster.blogspot.c...ladstoned.html?

2) No opportunity to check if the driver had parked in the right place. The photos and PCN show the car parked at a specific time Hour, Minute etc and do not include entry or exit times or any grace period. the "The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above." By only showing one time without any kind of grace period, the driver does not have an opportunity to check whether they are in the right bay for Majestic and move their car. That is From the moment they parked in the Bay they would already be subject to a PCN.

3) The PCN states "By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all terms and conditions". The issue we have with this is that this is overkill because entry onto the private land as a whole is clearly allowed to use Majestic and or the Gym.

[des8]

You seem to have a fair grip on the situation, with good grounds to dispute the charge,
However don't expect CMP or the "Independent Appeals Service" to accept them and you might have to fight them in court.

Don't forget you must not identify the driver, and in any event they cannot increase their claim to include collection fees.

[R0b]

I agree with your observations but there's also the point that the letter seems to fail to describe the circumstances as to how the parking charge arose, it merely says the driver parked in breach of the conditions but fails to state what conditions were breached.

Given that the land is used by other businesses, I would be immediately querying their right to pursue charges on the land in question in accordance with paragraph 5(1) of POFA (that the creditor i.e. CPM has the right to enforce parking charges) and request a copy of that contract. Presumably the requirement of a CPM permit can only come from CPM so that condition can never be filled unless one is issued, and further evidence that anyone who is not issued with a permit is an unuathorised user.

Equally, I would craft a carefully worded letter/appeal saying that you do not accept the PCN or liability for the reasons listed in your response. Would avoid using any reference to trespass at the moment and instead say something like, I believe no contract existed and therefore no liability can be imposed on your for the following reasons and then list out those reasons.

Arguably, if they did pursue this to court, you could bring a counterclaim for harassment on the basis that they have pursued you unjustifiably as the claim they have against you has no legal foundation and, had they taken a moment to review the evidence, they would have known this as would any other reasonable person. Their sole aim like many others in your position, is to threaten and/or issue proceedings in the hope that you would pay up before it went to trial.

Of course, claiming harassment is optional only so do not feel like you have to go down that path if you are not comfortable and there's no guarantee of a win, but I would think there are reasonable grounds.