Ticket from CPM

lesnmandy

any better in your opinion?

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealingagainst above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The confusing/contradictingsignage.

2. The amount demanded is not aGenuine Pre-estimate of loss.

3. Proof that the company has acontract with the landowner.

4. Unjustified immunity to parkingcharges.

Please find below detailed information about the points raisedabove.

1. To the point of the signage I have taken the effort to showcasesome issues I have found with said signage. Please note that one image is of theentrance to the car park in which the fine was issued. Please notice the badlyplaced signage on the wall to the left of the entrance, rather high and quitehard to spot from a the driver’s side of a vehicle, more so due to its positionnot being directly in front of the driver making it obvious and in plain 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 the carpark.

This sign direct from the housing association has no mention ofcontractual car parking. And so having this sign alongside CPM’S sign ismisleading, confusing and contradicting. One sign should be present, not both.

2. CPM in this case cannot justify how£60-£100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, please keep in mind that lossessuch as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership feesrequired by the business and general costs (postage etc) are typical costs ofrunning a company and cannot be justified as pre-estimate of loss. No loss hascome to the company by my parking in the space I have parked in for years.

The charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimatemust be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This mightbe, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at ashopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of thelosses incurred in managing the parking location. The entirety of the parkingcharge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. Irequire the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs arecalculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the allegedbreach.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges werepunitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposedby parking companies.

A parking charge is not automaticallyrecoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge as it cannot beused to state a loss where none exist. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it isbeing enforced as a penalty, this charge does not represent a genuinepre-estimate of loss and therefore does not meet the requirements of applicableconsumer protection legislation, for one example the unfair term in consumercontracts regulations 1999.

3. I put CPM to strict proof that theyhave the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with driversand to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breachof contract. I require CPM to produce the landowner contract - not just a pieceof paper saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. Icontend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) ismerely an agency matter between the landowner and CPM and cannot impact upondrivers or keepers whose lease or tenancy grants them the overriding legalright to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces). Athird party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found inParkingEye 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 withmotorists who used the car park.

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner andparking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parkingcompanies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. Oneexample from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores(2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as ParkingEye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practicesection 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clausesspecifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parkingcompany to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLAthat they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided“witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proofwhatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seenthe relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Irequire, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by aletter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalentof the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and therelevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit ofauthority of the parking company

4. Anotherpoint I would like to make is that I had a family member (my mother) visit onday of issue of the charge in question, she informed the gentleman issuingtickets that she had no permit what so ever but was visiting and the gentlemanagreed to turn a blind eye to this. Was she not ‘breeching contract’? this leftme confused.

The car park cannot be regularlyvisiting by CPM as my car is parked in the same place day in day out and thisis the first ticket I have received and when questioned the gentlemen issuingthe charge said he had come from London for the day. What is the point of aparking management company being present if they are rarely there to manage theparking?

This concludes my appeal.

bod1467

I'd remove item 4 completely. It adds nothing at all and will be completely disregarded.

Guys_Dad

First of all, thanks for taking my previous post as it was intended.

I would agree with bod1467's previous point, by the way.

Now layont, in my opinion, is important as is the judicious use of bold and italic, and I appreciate that somewhere your appeal seems to be centred. I would advise following my layout as well as words.

Now, your point about Judge Jenkins. I read this case on here. But it looks like the bit that follows from my template was from that case. And, although you have mentioned the case, to make an impact you should write

I refer you to Case No. 3QT62646 in the: BrentfordCounty Court 23/10/2013 Before: District Judge Jenkins.

The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.

It won't cut any ice here, of course as if it did, there would be no Private Parking industry and no need for POPLA, but bung it in any way.

Your point 2 on GPEOL is repetitive and a bit weak. I prefer mine, but you decide for yourself. By weak, I mean a bit like Sophie Ellis Bextor's dancing on Stricyly (that puts me in it!). The steps are there, just not enough pizazz.

Equally, you need to assert that the signs are not BPA compliant and you put the PPC to provide entrance photos that dispute that. Provide your own that prove your point, if you can.

But you are definitely getting there and well done .

lesnmandy

you're saying i should add "i submit that this applies in this case aswell" to the end of that paragraph? also look further up the thread and i have provided photos of entrance signage and contradicting signage which i will include in the appeal as for bpa compliant signs im not sure on what would/wouldnt make them compliant, just that the entrance sign isnt exactly 'in plain view@ and the other sign contradicts it for visitors and residents.

Guys_Dad

lesnmandy wrote: »

you're saying i should add "i submit that this applies in this case aswell" to the end of that paragraph? Yes otherwise no point in it being there

also look further up the thread and i have provided photos of entrance signage and contradicting signage which i will include in the appeal

Missed it, possibly because of centring. Sorry.

as for bpa compliant signs im not sure on what would/wouldnt make them compliant, just that the entrance sign isnt exactly 'in plain view@ and the other sign contradicts it for visitors and residents.

Ok, look in the appendices here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf. The second one tells you exactly what compliance is. Anywhere they fail, words or text size, draw that to POPLA's attention.

lesnmandy

Thank you. i think i have every i need, but as you said, couldnt help to add some pazaaaaz *smooth voice* into the appeal, any recomendations for this? and anyway to shorten / sweeten point 2?

Coupon-mad

Try this:



Dear POPLA

Appeal re verification code xxxxxxxxxx CPM PCN number xxxxxxx

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The contradicting and unclear signage which creates no contract between a driver and CPM.

2. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

3. I require the contract with the landowner is produced, as CPM are not the landowners and I contend they have no legal standing to pursue this charge.

Please find below detailed information about the points raised above.

1. To the point of the signage I have taken the effort to showcase some issues I have found which demonstrate that the signage is not compliant with Appendix B and section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Please note that one image attached is of the entrance to the car park where it is impossible to see any CPM signs at all from the driver’s side of a vehicle.

As an AOS member, their entrance signage must be prominent and readable from a seated position, with terms & conditions in the driver's clear view on arrival when a vehicle first turns into a car park. In this car park CPM have failed in this regard, especially when there is another sign which is prominent. As you can see from the photo attached, there is a clear sign from the Housing Association with whom I have a contract as an authorised and paying tenant. This HA sign is visible on arrival and clearly states “Parking for Residents and Visitors only” and that is the express permission upon which I rely as a tenant, that I am authorised to park there.

This HA sign introduces no contractual requirements for displaying permits, nor does it warn of any repercussions for not displaying any permit, nor any 'contraventions' at all if the driver is a resident or visitor. I am a tenant so I accept my right to park from the HA, not from a third party agent who may have another sign on site but cannot re-offer these same parking spaces on different terms from the HA offer. And this is an operator which my photos show, has failed to meet the strict BPA requirements for clear entrance signs. The entrance is where any alleged parking contract with a driver must be made - and I deny any contract was made between myself and CPM since there was no consideration, and no offer nor acceptance.

2. This charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. CPM may try to allege their minimal signage creates a contractual agreement, but this is denied. In any case, CPM's letter clearly states that this parking incident relates to an alleged 'breach of contract' (their words). So the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be possibly enforceable. CPM in this case cannot possibly justify £100 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty. Since there is no other income at this site, these PCNs represent the only profit for CPM and it is clear that they cannot be operating at a permanent loss.

3. 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. To show compliance with the BPA CoP section 7, I require CPM to produce the landowner contract - not just an inadmissible 'witness statement' 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 tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces).

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided photocopied “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. These highly questionable documents from parking operators have been exposed in the public domain as sometimes having had the date added after 'witness signature' by another person, adding a random date to suit a court or POPLA case. These witness statements are therefore not relevant to a specific event and the details are far too unreliable to confirm compliance of the contract as defined in the BPA CoP and would fail to meet the level of certainty required for a POPLA or court decision. If CPM produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this is disregarded and that the Chief Adjudicator is required to investigate this issue and consider carefully the serious irregularities known about these documents if the assessor in my case is minded to consider one as evidence.

Finally, a third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma: Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.

Yours,

lesnmandy

Thank you ever so much for that. I find these companies so wrong. Almost like they are wandering around looking for scraps ( people to ticket).

lesnmandy

I shall submit the appeal tomorrow but doubt I will hear back before I leave for Japan. As soon as I her the outcome I will post the results. Thanks for all those who have helped me through this right pain in the @ss.

It really is very much appreciated.

lesnmandy

All submitted, wish me luck.