Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Roshi
    • By Roshi 10th Apr 17, 1:36 PM
    • 57Posts
    • 16Thanks
    IAS Appeal dismissal
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 17, 1:36 PM
    IAS Appeal dismissal 10th Apr 17 at 1:36 PM

    I recently appealed a parking notice from UK CPM ltd via the IAS
    see below :

    as well as the residents park our cars here regularly, my vehicle has been parked here weekly for the past 2 yrs and I have never received a parking invoice. It is causing no damage or obstruction to other cars as you can see from the photo I have uploaded there is a car access the road at ease. The signage that the CPM have on display is illegal and therefore not valid. they have the BPA symbol for accredited operator on and they are not accredited operators they are members only. I have photos uploaded also and I have checked with the BPA. The " contract is therefore not valid. Not to mention the height of the signage makes it un readable.

    The operator reported that...

    The appellant was the keeper.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
    The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 31/01/2017.
    A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
    The ticket was issued on 28/12/2016.
    The charge is based in Contract.

    The operator made the following comments...

    The appellant has parked on an access road/roadway. The appellant has parked within clear view of our sign. Signage clearly states "NO PARKING ON ACCESS ROADS & NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED AREA/PARKING BAY". By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.

    Markings on roadways such as yellow lines are not applicable within private land. All signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking and therefore parking restrictions were clearly breached and a parking charge notice was subsequently issued.

    UK CPM no longer uses the “Approved member” BPA logo but as we are still a corporate member of BPA we are still authorised to use the standard BPA logo on our literature. Currently we are working towards removing the logo from all of our signs, as you can appreciate we have thousands of sites throughout the UK therefore we were given time to ensure they were all removed.


    The place of which the vehicle was parked is not causing damage or obstructing through roads and it is not clear that you are unable to park there. Having parked there regularly for over two years without a parking notice. Not consistence in handing out notices. The sign on site clearly still states registered operator of BPA of which they are not. The BPA have confirmed this sigh is not legitimate while displaying the approved operator badge unless the company are a approved operator. Therefore making the " contract" not valid. I appreciate they have many sites but this is not down to me to mange. The sign has stated that logo since the day the parking notice was received plenty of time to remove signage. Either way the sign is not legal making the contract invalid.


    The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking on the roadway may be issued with the parking charge notice. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land managed by the Operator, in close proximity to a sign advertising the terms, and on the roadway. Therefore, I am satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

    The Appellant argues they have parked at this location for two years without any issues and caused no obstruction. I am unable to consider previous parking behaviour as this is irrelevant to the question of whether the parking charge notice was lawfully issued. In addition the terms make no exception for those not causing obstruction.

    The Appellant further contends there could be no lawful contract as the sign refers to the BPA, when the Operator is not an accredited member, and the sign is too high to be legible. In relation to the first point, as the Operator mentions they remain corporate members of the BPA, which entitles them to use the logo. Even if this were wildly inaccurate and the Operator simply failed to change the logo on their sign it would not alter the terms, or the fact the Appellant agreed to them by parking as they did. The Appellant has provided a photograph of the sign, which appears high, but there is nothing against which to judge this, such as a vehicle to assess the height and scale. There is no evidence this cannot be read when stood near to the sign.

    The appeal is dismissed.

    can anyone advise me on what to do next,

    Thank you in advance
Page 3
    • Roshi
    • By Roshi 10th Jul 17, 9:44 AM
    • 57 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    I will take look thanks ))
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,310Posts Today

8,220Users online

Martin's Twitter