10-11-2026, 09:41 AM
Welcome to the forum @parkinguk.
UK CPM have done precisely what I would have expected them to do: completely sidestep the substantive issue you raised and simply repeat that no permit was displayed.
That does not answer your appeal.
Nobody appears to be disputing that the permit was not displayed. The important question is whether UK CPM had any legal or contractual right to require you to display one in the first place, or to impose a £100 charge upon you for failing to do so, when you already have a pre-existing contractual right to park in that specific allocated space.
Their statement that:
simply assumes the very thing that is in dispute. A sign erected by a third-party parking company does not automatically amend or override rights already granted under a lease.
Your case therefore potentially turns upon what your lease actually grants and, just as importantly, whether it contains anything permitting the freeholder/managing agent to introduce and enforce a permit scheme of this nature.
Before deciding the next step, I need to see:
• Both sides of the original Notice to Keeper, or, if the first notice was placed on the windscreen, the original Notice to Driver and subsequent Notice to Keeper.
• The entrance signage to the development/car park.
• A clear photograph of the actual contractual terms sign applying to your bay.
• The parking-space schedule/plan showing that the bay is specifically allocated to your property.
• Ideally, the relevant parts of the lease dealing with the parking space, rights granted to the leaseholder, regulations/covenants and any power reserved to the landlord or management company to introduce regulations.
Do not obscure dates, wording or times when uploading the parking notices. You can redact your name, address, vehicle registration and PCN reference.
At present, the important point is that UK CPM's rejection does not establish that the charge is valid. It merely establishes that UK CPM say their signs require a permit.
Those are two very different things.
Where a lease grants an occupier a right to park, the starting point is the lease, not whatever terms a parking company subsequently chooses to put on a sign. A parking company cannot simply grant you permission to do something that your lease already permits and then charge you £100 for failing to comply with an additional condition unless there is a proper contractual/legal mechanism by which that condition became binding upon you.
There may also be issues concerning primacy of contract, interference with rights granted under the lease and potentially derogation from grant, but I want to see the actual documents before going further with those arguments.
You now have the option of an IAS appeal, but do not rush into submitting one yet. There is a 28-day deadline from UK CPM's rejection, so make a note of that date. Let us first see the notices, signs and whatever lease material you have available so that we can determine exactly what UK CPM are relying upon and whether there are additional grounds, including any defects in keeper liability.
Keep in mind that you are dealing with a totally corrupt system that is nothing but a scam, for all intents and purposes. The IAS is a kangaroo court and certainly not "independent" as they are owned by the very same entity that owns the IPC trade association. Knowing CPM, this will go as far as a small claim hearing in the county court. Nothing to be worried about and there is absolutely no danger of anything affecting your credit rating.
There is another important issue here: the conduct and potential liability of your managing agent. They have apparently appointed UK CPM to operate this parking scheme and have now refused to intervene, asserting that the PCN was issued in accordance with the site's parking regulations.
I would challenge that assertion directly. The managing agent must explain precisely where it derives the authority to impose regulations that potentially interfere with your existing leasehold rights.
The Court of Appeal decision in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 establishes that a landlord cannot derogate from rights already granted under a lease. Furthermore, in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, the County Court, sitting on appeal, considered the incompatibility of a parking company's restrictions with existing residential leasehold rights.
I suggest you send the managing agent the following:
So, for now: do not pay it and do not identify the driver if that has not already been done. Upload the documents above and we can take it from there.
UK CPM have done precisely what I would have expected them to do: completely sidestep the substantive issue you raised and simply repeat that no permit was displayed.
That does not answer your appeal.
Nobody appears to be disputing that the permit was not displayed. The important question is whether UK CPM had any legal or contractual right to require you to display one in the first place, or to impose a £100 charge upon you for failing to do so, when you already have a pre-existing contractual right to park in that specific allocated space.
Their statement that:
"the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions"
simply assumes the very thing that is in dispute. A sign erected by a third-party parking company does not automatically amend or override rights already granted under a lease.
Your case therefore potentially turns upon what your lease actually grants and, just as importantly, whether it contains anything permitting the freeholder/managing agent to introduce and enforce a permit scheme of this nature.
Before deciding the next step, I need to see:
• Both sides of the original Notice to Keeper, or, if the first notice was placed on the windscreen, the original Notice to Driver and subsequent Notice to Keeper.
• The entrance signage to the development/car park.
• A clear photograph of the actual contractual terms sign applying to your bay.
• The parking-space schedule/plan showing that the bay is specifically allocated to your property.
• Ideally, the relevant parts of the lease dealing with the parking space, rights granted to the leaseholder, regulations/covenants and any power reserved to the landlord or management company to introduce regulations.
Do not obscure dates, wording or times when uploading the parking notices. You can redact your name, address, vehicle registration and PCN reference.
At present, the important point is that UK CPM's rejection does not establish that the charge is valid. It merely establishes that UK CPM say their signs require a permit.
Those are two very different things.
Where a lease grants an occupier a right to park, the starting point is the lease, not whatever terms a parking company subsequently chooses to put on a sign. A parking company cannot simply grant you permission to do something that your lease already permits and then charge you £100 for failing to comply with an additional condition unless there is a proper contractual/legal mechanism by which that condition became binding upon you.
There may also be issues concerning primacy of contract, interference with rights granted under the lease and potentially derogation from grant, but I want to see the actual documents before going further with those arguments.
You now have the option of an IAS appeal, but do not rush into submitting one yet. There is a 28-day deadline from UK CPM's rejection, so make a note of that date. Let us first see the notices, signs and whatever lease material you have available so that we can determine exactly what UK CPM are relying upon and whether there are additional grounds, including any defects in keeper liability.
Keep in mind that you are dealing with a totally corrupt system that is nothing but a scam, for all intents and purposes. The IAS is a kangaroo court and certainly not "independent" as they are owned by the very same entity that owns the IPC trade association. Knowing CPM, this will go as far as a small claim hearing in the county court. Nothing to be worried about and there is absolutely no danger of anything affecting your credit rating.
There is another important issue here: the conduct and potential liability of your managing agent. They have apparently appointed UK CPM to operate this parking scheme and have now refused to intervene, asserting that the PCN was issued in accordance with the site's parking regulations.
I would challenge that assertion directly. The managing agent must explain precisely where it derives the authority to impose regulations that potentially interfere with your existing leasehold rights.
The Court of Appeal decision in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 establishes that a landlord cannot derogate from rights already granted under a lease. Furthermore, in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, the County Court, sitting on appeal, considered the incompatibility of a parking company's restrictions with existing residential leasehold rights.
I suggest you send the managing agent the following:
Quote:FORMAL NOTICE – INTERFERENCE WITH LEASEHOLD PARKING RIGHTS
I refer to your assertion that UK Car Park Management Ltd issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with the site's parking regulations.
You have failed to explain how those regulations can lawfully interfere with my pre-existing contractual right to park in the space specifically allocated to my property.
For the avoidance of doubt, your appointment of a private parking contractor does not, in itself, confer upon that contractor any authority to override or diminish rights granted under my lease.
I therefore require you to identify:
1. The specific provision of my lease authorising the imposition of a permit-display requirement as a condition of exercising my existing parking rights.
2. The contractual provision authorising a third-party parking company to impose a £100 charge for failure to display such a permit.
3. The identity of the party that authorised UK CPM's appointment and the legal basis upon which it claims authority to enforce charges against leaseholders using their allocated spaces.
You are now formally on notice that I dispute the lawfulness of these arrangements insofar as they interfere with my leasehold rights.
Should UK CPM continue enforcement action, I reserve the right to pursue appropriate remedies, including injunctive relief and damages where legally justified, against any party responsible for authorising, facilitating or continuing an unlawful interference with those rights.
This expressly includes consideration of your own involvement as managing agent. Acting on behalf of a freeholder or management company does not provide automatic immunity from liability for a managing agent's own unlawful acts.
I require a substantive response addressing the contractual and legal issues raised, rather than a repetition of UK CPM's assertion that its signage requires a permit.
Please confirm that this matter has been referred to the freeholder or management company responsible for appointing UK CPM, and that you have instructed UK CPM to suspend enforcement pending resolution of this dispute.
So, for now: do not pay it and do not identify the driver if that has not already been done. Upload the documents above and we can take it from there.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
