CPM parking fine

kennethwilliams101

Unfortunately the location was a residential street with no disabled parking bays.

Coupon-mad

bod1467 wrote: »

Is the BB on "display" if it is in the footwell?

/devil's advocate

It wasn't the BB that was in the footwell, it was the permit I think.

kennethwilliams101 wrote: »

Unfortunately the location was a residential street with no disabled parking bays.

Can't really be a 'street' though. That would be Council run. Do you mean a small road within blocks of flats on private land?

kennethwilliams101

It is a residential road with terraced town houses and possibly a block of flats at one end - It does not appear to be any different from any other 'normal' road or street - Only difference I can see is the vicinity to a train station and the parking notice as you enter - Although if CPM are issuing notices I assume it can't be council run ?

Coupon-mad

Don't assume too soon. Check with the Council, just phone up and ask who to speak to in the Highways Dept to check whether a particular street is adopted or not, and also check with the Parking Enforcement Team to see if that road is covered by a Traffic Order or not?

Unadopted streets with no Traffic Order could be 'private land' and covered by a PPC but you don't know till you ask. Worth checking because we HAVE seen PPCs issue tickets in the wrong place before now.

kennethwilliams101

What do you think of this draft ?

CPM PCN Reference *********
POPLA Reference *********
Vehicle Registration *********

Dear POPLA,

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle I am writing to appeal against a parking charge notice issued in ***** ****** on **********. My initial appeal to UK Car Park Management (CPM) has been declined.

I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds :

1) Parking Permit Obtained
The vehicle was parked for a short period whilst my family visited relatives who live in the road (a residential street). A valid parking permit to park in this location was given to us by these relatives (who will confirm in writing if required). This permit was placed on the dashboard next to our daughter’s disabled parking badge. However, it would appear that this permit must have fallen from the dashboard whilst the rear passenger door was open. Her disability means that it takes a considerably longer period to exit from the car than would normally be expected.

2) No Parking Charge Notice Left On Vehicle & No Contact Before ‘Discounted Amount’ Timed Out.
The first time that we were even made aware of any PCN was when I received the Notice To Keeper letter on ******. This letter stated that ‘This PCN has not been paid in full and the opportunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost’. No ticket was found on the vehicle on the date in question and no other letters regarding a PCN have been received. This seems to be highly suspicious behaviour from CPM.

3) The Charge Is A Penalty And Not A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss.
I do not believe that the charge of £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I feel it is punitive, unreasonable and totally exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to any loss that would have been suffered by the landowner. The BPA Code of Practice states :

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

I would require CPM to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that normal expenditure that CPM incurs to carry on their business, their operational day-to-day running costs (e.g. parking enforcement, provision of parking, signage erection, salaries and office costs) must not be included as these are operational costs that CPM would suffer regardless of my vehicle being parked in this location.

4) No Contract Between Driver and CPM

CPM’s signage in ********* states ‘You are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee’, however, I would assert that there exists no contract between CPM and the driver.
I would challenge CPM to provide strict and robust proof that there was a contract in place on the day that meets all the legal requirements of contract formation (i.e. a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms etc). If all of these requirements have not been satisfied the contract would be deemed as ‘unfair’ in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 of these regulations gives an indicative list of terms which may be unfair and include :

Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation".


Schedule 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"

Schedule 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term".

5) CPM’s Legal Capacity to Enforce Or Issue Parking Charge Notices

CPM have not produced any evidence in their correspondence with me to show that they have any proprietary interest in **********. Nor have they provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. As it appears that they do not own the land, nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question, it is assumed that they are merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. I contend, therefore, that they do not have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle for parking in the road.
With this in mind I would require that CPM provide a full, up-to date, signed and dated contract or agreement with the landowner. A signed witness statement stating that someone has seen a contract is not sufficient. The contract must state that CPM are entitled to pursue these matters through the issue of PCN’s and through the courts. This needs to be an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.


In light of these points I would respectfully request that my appeal of this PCN is upheld and the charges dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I have started to suggest some additional stuff in case the signage is not alleging 'breach' or 'failure to comply' (in which case GPEOL is shaky ground to rely too much on):

kennethwilliams101 wrote: »

CPM PCN Reference *********
POPLA Reference *********
Vehicle Registration *********

Dear POPLA,

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle I am writing to appeal against a parking charge notice issued in ***** ****** on **********. My initial appeal to UK Car Park Management (CPM) has been declined.

I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds :

1) Parking Permit was displayed at the time of parking
The vehicle was parked for a short period whilst my family visited relatives who live in the road (a residential street). A valid parking permit to park in this location [STRIKE]was given to us by these relatives. (who will confirm in writing if required). [/STRIKE][STRIKE]This permit[/STRIKE] was placed on the dashboard next to the passenger's [STRIKE]our daughter’s[/STRIKE] disabled parking badge.

If CPM are alleging that the driver entered into a contract with them (which is denied) then it can only be formed during the short interval comprising parking/reading signs/placing the permit on the dashboard/deciding to stay at that location. And since this permit was on the dashboard when the car was parked, and CPM have shown no relevant evidence to the contrary, the contravention alleged in their later 'Notice to Keeper' letter is denied.

[STRIKE]However, it would appear that this permit must have fallen from the dashboard whilst the rear passenger door was open. Her disability means that it takes a considerably longer period to exit from the car than would normally be expected.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]No Parking Charge Notice Left On Vehicle & No Contact Before [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
‘Discounted Amount’ Timed Out.[/STRIKE]

2) Breaches of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 paragraphs 8 and 9
The first time that we were even made aware of any PCN was when I received the Notice To Keeper letter on ******. [STRIKE]This letter stated that ‘This PCN has not been paid in full and the opportunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost’.[/STRIKE]No ticket was found on the vehicle on the date in question and no other letters regarding a PCN have been received. [STRIKE]This seems to be highly suspicious behaviour from CPM.[/STRIKE]

As no evidence has been produced to show that any ticket was placed on the car windscreen, in order to establish registered keeper liability under POFA 2012, CPM were required to serve a postal (fully compliant) Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the incident. They have failed to do so, which would be a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 unless they can prove service of a compliant Parking Charge Notice first.

Notwithstanding the above, if CPM do show POPLA and myself clear evidence that a windscreen ticket was served - for example, by showing contemporaneous (dated/timed) photos of the car with this ticket on it at that time, on that day - then I still contend that the PCN and the Notice to Keeper fail to meet the strict criteria for such Notices in Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

Bearing in mind I have never seen this alleged 'Parking Charge Notice' I must contend that neither it nor the Notice to Keeper meet any of the requirements under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. I put CPM to strict proof of compliance with all parts of paragraph 8 including showing me and POPLA a true copy of the 'PCN'. If CPM show a copy of this in their 'evidence' I reserve the right to add to this point of appeal disputing 'paragraph 8' compliance, once I have had my first chance to scrutinise the PCN wording.


3) The Charge Is A Penalty And Not A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss.
I do not believe that the charge of £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I feel it is punitive, unreasonable and totally exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to any loss that would have been suffered by the landowner. The BPA Code of Practice states :

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

I would require CPM to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that normal expenditure that CPM incurs to carry on their business, their operational day-to-day running costs (e.g. parking enforcement, provision of parking, signage erection, salaries and office costs) must not be included as these are operational costs that CPM would suffer regardless of my vehicle being parked in this location.

4) No Contract Between Driver and CPM
CPM’s signage in ********* states ‘You are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee’, however, I would assert that there exists no contract between CPM and the driver.
I would challenge CPM to provide strict and robust proof that there was a contract in place on the day that meets all the legal requirements of contract formation (i.e. a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms etc). If all of these requirements have not been satisfied the contract would be deemed as ‘unfair’ in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 of these regulations gives an indicative list of terms which may be unfair and include :

Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation".

Schedule 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"

Schedule 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term".

In any case, I contend that the Operator has not made any 'relevant contract' with the driver at all. This charge is unenforceable, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma, Claim No. 3QT62646 in Brentford County Court on 23rd October 2013. District Judge Jenkins found that a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages. Any contract was purely a commercial matter between an Operator and a landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists. CPM do not own this land so, like ParkingEye in that adduced case last week, I say that as mere agents, CPM have no legal standing to form contracts with visiting drivers nor to pursue charges in their own name.


5) CPM’s Legal Capacity to Enforce Or Issue Parking Charge Notices
CPM have not produced any evidence in their correspondence with me to show that they have any proprietary interest in **********. Nor have they provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. As it appears that they do not own the land, nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question, it is assumed that they are merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. I contend, therefore, that they do not have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle for parking in the road.

With this in mind I would require that CPM provide a full, [STRIKE]up-to date,[/STRIKE] contemporaneous signed and dated contract [STRIKE]or agreement[/STRIKE] with the landowner. A signed witness statement stating that someone has seen a contract is not sufficient. The contract must state that CPM are entitled to pursue these matters through the issue of PCN’s and through the courts. This needs to be an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.

As this is a residential street with terraced town houses and is not a car park, CPM are required to show that this is 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA 2012 and that it is not already covered by statute/Traffic Order. This street has the clear appearance of public highway and is not a car park so I contend that it is not 'relevant land' where CPM could establish registered keeper liability at all. CPM are required to prove it is 'relevant land' with a 'relevant contract' because they cannot invoke registered keeper liability otherwise.



6) Signage not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice

*



In light of these points I would respectfully request that my appeal of this PCN is upheld and the charges dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

* can you show us exactly what the sign says? Was there a sign at the entrance to this 'road'? Was there a sign near your car?

Have you managed to find anything out from the Council about this road? If not yet, I would keep working on this draft and find out Monday what the Council say about whether it is included in any local Traffic Order.

Can you show us a picture of the Notice to Keeper (both sides) as we would really like to spot any POFA omissions for you! Bound to be some!

kennethwilliams101

Sign at the entrance to the road - On the right as you go over a traffic hump

Coupon-mad

Can't see links as you can't post them yet as a newbie. So post a broken link instead please (remove the http://).

kennethwilliams101

It was saved as jpg on my computer - I'll do it by hand :

Private Property

Unauthorised parking or parking a vehicle in an area of space that has been designated to you may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice.

Permits must be clearly dislplayed in windscreen at all times

Terns Of Parking Without Permission

You do so at your own risk to property and personal injury and you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee

The Following Fees Apply

Parking Charge Notice - £100 per day or the reduced sum of £60 if payment is made with 14 days

You will incur additional charges resulting from further action being taken against you if the fee remains unpaid.

0845 463 5050

Uk car park management litd

All appeals in writing to :

address

then a blue square with P in white inside

Coupon-mad

kennethwilliams101 wrote: »

Sign at the entrance to the road - On the right as you go over a traffic hump

So the sign was at the entrance - but was there another one (or more) prominently displayed in the street near where you parked too?

Looks as though it won't be GPEOL that wins this but I would leave the paragraph about loss in anyway to make the PPC jump through hoops.

Now can you show a photo of the front & back of the ticket? Or alternatively Google 'Schedule 4 Freedoms Act' and look at paragraph 8 which talks in simple bullet points about NTKs sent after a 'windscreen ticket' (which is what CPM have alleged this is). Look at every point 8a) through to the last one (8h)? and spot what is NOT stated on that Notice to Keeper that they posted. Period of parking? Creditor? Etc.!