Ticket from CPM

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

We need to see the layout and content on the Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss point. On another thread today, Wilson1 has lost an appeal because the assessor didn't see it although it was in the appeal, but a bit obscured. .

As posted already, I suspect points 3, 4 and 5 in Wilson1's case were not firmly attached and if he didn't put the POPLA code on every page and just put 2 pages loose in an envelope with a POPLA form what did he expect might happen in a paper-logged office, to a loose page with no verification code (perhaps)?

TBH I am guessing but it's pretty obvious from the POPLA assessor's wording that there were only 2 points in that appeal.

Coupon-mad

lesnmandy wrote: »

Any feedback on this? have i worded it correctly and got the point across? also is this enough?



I am appealing my charge for reasons such as the car park managementcompany alleging “breach of contract”

I would like to see proof that the parking management companyhas the proper legal authorisation to contract consumers on the landowner’sbehalf and enforce for breach of contract, and what and whose costs come fromthis. A parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it isstated to be a parking charge as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exist.It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced as a penalty, this chargedoes not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore does not meetthe requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for one examplethe unfair term in consumer contracts regulations 1999.



CPM in this case cannot justify how £60-£100 is a genuinepre-estimate of loss, please keep in mind that losses such as site signage andmaintenance, staff employment, membership fees required by the business andgeneral costs (postage etc) are typical costs of running a company and cannotbe justified as pre-estimate of loss.

It's a good start but I suggest more, I always like to include a paragraph about lack of entrance signage as well; look at these examples of POPLA appeals (some shorter and some longer):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=62180281&posted=1

I also think you need to spell out that whilst the signage is misleading about the basis for this 'charge', CPM's letter clearly alleges 'breach of contract' so that's why you are saying that the charge isn't contractually agreed (despite the signage being badly worded) and so CPM must show that it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Also the wording here:

I would like to see proof that the parking management company has the proper legal authorisation to contract consumers on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract, and what and whose costs come from this.

needs to be more like:

I put CPM to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I require CPM to produce the landowner contract - not just a piece of paper saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely an agency matter between the landowner and CPM and cannot impact upon drivers or keepers whose lease or tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces). A third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma:

Case No. 3QT62646 in the: Brentford County Court 23/10/2013
Before: District Judge Jenkins.
The judge said that contract was a commercial matter between PE and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park.






.P.S. For your information, lesnmandy: ParkingEye v Sharma. :T

P.P.S Why don't you just tell your Managing Agent that you wish to opt out of the useless and aggressive parking regime? Do you own the flat? Own the spaces?

lesnmandy

Thanks for rewording that for me haha as for entry signage I feel they really do have pretty decent and obvious signage at the entrance.

lesnmandy

Just come back from a nice coffee in town and noticed next to the cpm sign at the entrance to our car park there is a sign from the housing association saying "car park for residents and visitors only" could this be used to my advantage as I got a ticket despite the fact I am a resident?

Coupon-mad

lesnmandy wrote: »

Just come back from a nice coffee in town and noticed next to the cpm sign at the entrance to our car park there is a sign from the housing association saying "car park for residents and visitors only" could this be used to my advantage as I got a ticket despite the fact I am a resident?

Yes that is the sort of misleading sign you could show in your evidence when putting CPM to proof about their own signage. You can say that's the only sign 'the driver' has ever noticed - after all, who would look for more signs that don't relate to them? Seeing as 'the driver' is a resident there was never any accepted contract made with (non-landowner) CPM and their third party signage. The residents have accepted the offer of parking by virtue of their leases or tenancy agreements, directly from the landowner, the Housing Association, whose signage (picture attached) shows clearly that the parking is offered by them to residents and visitors, with no proviso on their sign about permits being on dashboards. The registered keeper is appealing to POPLA in the sure and certain knowledge that the HA authorises residents and visitors to park there, according to a clear and unambiguous entrance sign, and that formed the ONLY contract that the driver could possibly have accepted, seeing as CPM are just an agent of the HA and can't offer parking or form contracts with drivers or suffer any loss in their own right.

You'll have seen the link I gave you earlier, to strong POPLA appeal examples. We always suggest a paragraph about signage being non-compliant or misleading.

lesnmandy wrote: »

Thanks for rewording that for me haha as for entry signage I feel they really do have pretty decent and obvious signage at the entrance.

That misses the point - I say ALWAYS put in a paragraph criticising the signage and putting a PPC to proof of where the signs are on site and what they say, as you believe they are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Point being this forces them to have to provide maps and signage pictures to POPLA (at a cost to them!) which have been known to be mucked up:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/highview-parking-send-in-map-of-wrong.html

Every point you make forces CPM to have to jump through a hoop to rebut it.

lesnmandy

So reckon these links would help my appeal.
//i39.tinypic.com/xe214n.jpg[/IMG]

/i44.tinypic.com/w8w08g.jpg[/IMG]

A picture of the entrance to the car park and the sign the housing association put there.

Coupon-mad

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xe214n&s=5#.Un_aeuhFCpo

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=w8w08g&s=5#.Un_am-hFCpo

Yes, marvellous as additional evidence!

lesnmandy

ok how is this faring up?



I am appealing my charge for reasons such as the car parkmanagement company alleging “breach of contract”

There is signage in the car park but I find this verymisleading especially on the basis of this ‘charge’, in the letter I received inresponse to my appeal the phrase “Breach of contract” was used which would meanthe charge isn’t contractually agreed.

Further to the point of the signage I have taken theeffort to showcase some issues i have found with said signage. Please note thatone image is of the entrance to the car park in which the fine was issued. Pleasenotice the badly placed signage on the wall to the left of the entrance, ratherhigh and quite hard to spot from a rivers side view, more so due to itsposition not being directly in front of the driver making itself obvious and inplain sight. Furthermore next to CPM’s sign is a sign from the housingassociation on which I live under. This sign as pictured Cleary states “Parkingfor Residents and Visitors Only”, this sign coming direct from the land owneroverrides the sign from a third party car park management company and is ofmore direct indication to me as a tenant. This sign states that under the pointthat i am a resident I have the right to park. Regardless and immune to anythird party car park management. I am a tenant; I have the right to use. This signdirect from the housing association has no mention of contractual car parking. Andso having this sign alongside CPM’S sign is misleading, confusing and contradicting.One sign should be present, not both.

I put CPM to strict proof that they have the proper legalauthorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforcecharges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. Irequire CPM to produce the landowner contract - not just a piece of papersaying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend thatany business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely anagency matter between the landowner and CPM and cannot impact upon drivers orkeepers whose lease or tenancy grants them the overriding legal right topeaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces). A third partyagent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma:

Case No. 3QT62646 in the: BrentfordCounty Court 23/10/2013
Before: District Judge Jenkins.
The judge said that contract was a commercial matter betweenPE and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motoristswho used the car park.

A parking charge is not automatically recoverable simplybecause it is stated to be a parking charge as it cannot be used to state aloss where none exist. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced as apenalty, this charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and thereforedoes not meet the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation,for one example the unfair term in consumer contracts regulations 1999.

One final point I would like to make is that I had a familymember (my mother) visit on day of issue of the charge in question, sheinformed the gentleman issuing tickets that she had no permit what so ever butwas visiting and the gentleman agreed to turn a blind eye to this. Was she not ‘breechingcontract’? this left me confused.

CPM in this case cannot justify how £60-£100 is a genuinepre-estimate of loss, please keep in mind that losses such as site signage andmaintenance, staff employment, membership fees required by the business andgeneral costs (postage etc) are typical costs of running a company and cannotbe justified as pre-estimate of loss.

Guys_Dad

Your appeal is all over the place. You hint at points but don't really get to grips with them. For example, GPEOL point is in last paragraph and also in the one two paragraphs before.

The layout is a complete mess. A literary equivalent of the famous Morecambe and Wise/ Andre Previn Sketch "I am playing the correct notes, but not necessarily in the right sequence".

I am not having a go - just trying to help you win, so read this post in that light.

Take a look at my suggested core template. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816165

Follow the format.

Use my GPEOL paragraph.

Add any other points like your mum having permission from the attendant

lesnmandy

thank you for the constructive feedback i'll look into your link redo and post again