Ticket from CPM

Coupon-mad

What?! That was wrong, since earlier posts on this thread told us that the NTK and/or rejection letter claimed damages for a breach of contract. So she is wrong with her final words.

First question, did the PPC send you their evidence before this decision came through? They had to send you an evidence pack, show us the landowner contract wording if it's not been protected as 'confidential'. Was the contract redacted (covered up) in any wording or detail?


Did they provide 'strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name in the courts' which was in the POPLA appeal wording?


She also missed this specifically made point, so did their evidence rebut it? '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'.


She also did not consider your points thoroughly, no mention of several other things that were in that POPLA appeal (if you used the version I wrote)?.

Don't pay, this needs looking into and can be referred to the Lead Adjudicator but we need the bullets to do so (the facts from their 'evidence').

I said in an earlier post, I said 'I saw that the letter alleges breach of contract'. Can you show us the NTK again and the rejection letter from the PPC, all sides where there is any wording, as well as the 'evidence' the PPC sent you (even if you have to get a relative to check for post at home). What was the 'clear evidence' of 'adequate signage' they showed then(!) and did it show a clear sign at the entrance, seeing as the signage paragraph above in the POPLA appeal was specific about this.

If no evidence was sent to you then it can be referred back to POPLA on that point, so do tell us.

The_Deep

you are basing your opinion on the popla assessor outcome instead of the actual thread where all this was debated previously

No I am not, I have not expressed an opinion. I have however commented on the legitimacy of the parking charge.

Yes, the adjudicator took the easy option, but why were they given the opportunity to do so. The adjudicator ruled of a breach of contract, but there was no contract in the first place.

Redx

either way, the correct place to debate this is in the original thread which also contains the popla outcome which I clearly stated in my previous reply

here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4788284

this POPLA Decisions thread is a list of decisions by popla , but too many people want to add their ten pennorth into it instead of the main forum where the debates should be held and are normally held

I have been liaising with forum staff to try to get the dross removed from these sticky threads, and if I were or become a mod here most of the replies in this and other stickies (like this one and the previous three) would be split off or deleted within the next half an hour, same as on other forums I moderate on - period

The_Deep

I will repeat, my comment had nothing to do with the original thread, which you are so insistent that I read, it is about all cases concerning drivers stopping, (not parling), on Airport roads, and some railways stations. Therefore, my choice of its inclusion in this Section is, I believe the correct one,

I agree that there are far too many "me too" posts on these threads, but I am satisfied that mine was not one of them.

My question is a legitimate matter for debate, wjy are you so reluctant so to do? Why do so many of you encourage the punters to go for the easy win on GPOL, a victory on relevant land, or stopping is not parking would damage the PPCs far more.

lesnmandy

No evidence was ever sent to me nor my address back in the U.K. I'm becoming very confused and frustrated with this, I don't want to pay the bandits but I just want this delt with now. isn't all relative information still posted within links earlier in this thread?

Hopefully more information for me to read the by time I finish my lessons this afternoon.

Thank you everyone for your help and impute and coupon, yes I went with your letter.

Coupon-mad

OK, I wondered if perhaps you received no evidence. That is a failure of the POPLA process by CPM.


You should have been served with a copy of the evidence they sent POPLA, by a deadline (sometime in December I expect) so that you would have had a week or two to get any observations in (such as if there was no date on the contact or the signage photos were not as you remember, that sort of thing). Without that it is unfair on you; people have complained about this before to the Chief Adjudicator.

So you need to read the bumf that arrived with the decision and see how to complain to the Lead Adjudicator on two counts (if it's not clear how to complain this way, email POPLA and ask immediately).


IMHO your two grounds for complaint are:


1. You were never sent any evidence from CPM whatsoever so this has seriously prejudiced your right to see their side of the dispute. You require the case to be 'set aside' and referred back for CPM to send you their evidence by a certain timeframe, and then for you to be able to comment on it to POPLA.

2. The POPLA decision has also 'erred in law' and in addition, the Assessor failed to consider all the appeal points; several points have not been considered and they are key to the decision. These errors and omissions include:

(A) you required 'strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name in the courts' (as required by the BPA Code)yet the Assessor has simply said ' the operator has provided a copy of a contract to support that they hold a contractual agreement with the landowner which gives the operator the authority to issue the parking charge notice...'. Authority to ISSUE a PCN was never queried by you! After all, any commercial employer/employee/agent/temp/passer by could 'issue' a piece of paper on a windscreen - rather like any advertising flyer. The points in the contract that were strictly disputed were as in bold above and it was spelt out very clearly what you required as proof (and you used words that match the BPA CoP, without which a contract is not compliant). And as you haven't seen this evidence you don't even know if this 'contract' is in date, is even with the current landowner, has the required wording you asked for 'strict proof' of, complies with the BPA CoP or not - and is it redacted or is all detail shown? You have no idea because you weren't sent anything.

(B) The Assessor also missed this specifically made point, so did their evidence rebut it? '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'.

Yet in her decision, the Assessor does not refer to this specific wording in the Operator's Notice to Keeper and rejection letter . The CPM sign (not visible from a driver's seat on arrival at the entrance anyway) actually talks about 'unauthorised' parking. The Assessor notices this word but says '“unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice”. I find that this indicates consideration and not damages...'

That is clearly NOT a contractual fee for 'agreed parking', not if they refer to 'Unauthorised parking'. And this point is proved by the 'breach of contract' wording that your original POPLA appeal specifically pointed out that the Operator used in their NTK and rejection letter - and as you haven't seen their case summary you have no idea what that said about the matter of breach/loss.

Which brings you onto the point you made specifically about the unclear (missing) signage which failed to make any contract with the driver:

(C) You included Photos of the site entrance with your POPLA appeal, where there is a sign indicating consideration direct from the Housing Association which has no mention of contractual car parking, nor fees nor breach of contract issues and merely says “Parking for Residents and Visitors Only”. The photos also show the view as the driver would have arrived and there are no signs facing the road at all despite the fact there is a pole there. The Assessor says 'There is clear evidence which shows that there was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions.' Well you have not seen any evidence at all and you have no idea where those signs might be placed, for all you know the Operator may have sent photos of another site, or a photo round the back well away from the entrance. You don't even know whether the Operator included a map/schematic of signage, and what they said to explain the lack of clear signage at the entrance (which is when any contract must be communicated BEFORE parking). After all once a point is made the burden shifts to the Operator to rebut it - you have no idea how/if they even did and you suspect they just sent a couple of pictures of a sign and a map, perhaps - but you should not have to guess and need the opportunity to see the evidence CPM submitted.

Seeing as your appeal was thorough and enclosed photos of the entrance with NO signs on poles/nothing facing a driver before parking, why were these points not addressed:
- 'The contradicting and unclear signage which creates no contract between a driver and CPM.' = not addressed
- '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.' = not addressed
- '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.' = not addressed.

As far as the signage is concerned, bearing in mind I have NOT seen CPM's so-called 'evidence' about entrance signs, I would point out that POPLA seems to be inconsistent with decisions depending upon the Assessor. In a broadly comparable January 2014 POPLA decision number 1773123003, the Assessor upheld the appeal on 'entrance signage' and said 'As the Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear. The Operator has produced pictures of two signs on site but I cannot tell the location of these signs. The Operator has also produced a site map showing where signs are located. I cannot find on the balance of probabilities, where the Appellant submits there was no entrance sign at the material time, that the appellant would have seen signs if parked near the front half of the car park. Taking together all of the evidence before me, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the Appellant.1773123003 same week, but by Marina Kapour''

Why was the signage not so thoroughly investigated in my case, when I had clearly submitted it as one of my 3 appeal points? My assessor seems to have just read the sign, misunderstood the effect of wording saying 'unauthorised parking' and decided CPM don't have to show the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss even though their NTK and rejection letter used those words and I pointed them out in my appeal as relevant.

(D) In addition, the following points were also not addressed in my decision and of course I have no idea what the contract says about this agency/business agreement, and specifically about any assignment of rights to CPM to take any action which impacts upon residents (but POPLA does, POPLA has seen the contract but my points about it merely being a commercial matter between CPM and the managing agents were not mentioned). Specifically I said:

- '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).
- 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.'


So ask for POPLA to reconsider the matter with a referral to the Lead Assessor, once you have had the opportunity to review CPM's contract and signage and other evidence if CPM or POPLA send it to you urgently.

lesnmandy wrote: »

isn't all relative information still posted within links earlier in this thread?

Nope, you removed the pics of the documents (Notice to Keeper letter and rejection letter) I think because you had not redacted your personal info. Can we please see the letters again now, suitably redacted?

And are you certain nothing like 'evidence from CPM' was emailed to you, if you submitted the appeal online? Have you checked your junk/spam folder?

Redx

lesnmandy wrote: »

No evidence was ever sent to me nor my address back in the U.K. I'm becoming very confused and frustrated with this, I don't want to pay the bandits but I just want this delt with now. isn't all relative information still posted within links earlier in this thread?

Hopefully more information for me to read the by time I finish my lessons this afternoon.

Thank you everyone for your help and impute and coupon, yes I went with your letter.

so getting back to your appeal

clearly you need to appeal to the lead assessor in this if you did not receive any evidence pack at all , neither by email or by snail mail

your initial posted pic is no longer valid (posts #6 and #8) but the subsequent pictures of the housing association sign and car park entrance are valid in posts #27 and #28 but do not show any PPC signage

so I cannot see any pic of their sign which the assessor hinted at in the decision, so cannot comment on it

clearly it would help if there were pictures of their actual signage with the words written on it that the assessor said

I cannot even believe it failed on not a gpeol either , as it seems to me to be liquidated damages so has to have the actual loss assessed

clearly the lead assessor should be expected to look at this due to all the above points

am sure coupon-mad will guide you through that process better than I ever could

it needs overturning and that assessor retrained in my humble opinion as its a complete disgrace !!

lesnmandy

Ok guys I want to fight this. What happens after the 14 days to pay after popla decision?

Also I only have internet maybe an hour a day due to only having wifi at the mountain office and only way to access internet is with iPhone so not sure how to blot out sensitive information.

On the com website there is a photo of the signage I shall upload soon along with a photo of my car and the signage in background? Bad for me I expect. I shall try and get a family member to whatsapp me photos of the rejection letter.

How do I plead my case to the top man then?

lesnmandy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, I wondered if perhaps you received no evidence. You should have been served with a copy of the evidence they sent POPLA, by a deadline (sometime in December I expect) so that you would have had a week or two to get any observations in (such as if there was no date on the contact or the signage photos were not as you remember, that sort of thing). Without that it is unfair on you; people have complained about this before to the Chief Adjudicator.

So you need to read the bumf that arrived with the decision and see how to complain to the Lead Adjudicator on two counts (if it's not clear how to complain this way, email POPLA and ask immediately).


IMHO your two grounds for complaint are:


1. You were never sent any evidence from CPM whatsoever so this has seriously prejudiced your right to see their side of the dispute. You require the case to be 'set aside' and referred back for CPM to send you their evidence by a certain timeframe, and then for you to be able to comment on it to POPLA.

2. The POPLA decision has also 'erred in law' and in addition, the Assessor failed to consider all the appeal points; several points have not been considered and they are key to the decision. These errors and omissions include:

(A) you required 'strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name in the courts' (as required by the BPA Code)yet the Assessor has simply said ' the operator has provided a copy of a contract to support that they hold a contractual agreement with the landowner which gives the operator the authority to issue the parking charge notice...'. Authority to ISSUE a PCN was never queried by you! After all, any commercial employer/employee/agent/temp/passer by could 'issue' a piece of paper on a windscreen - rather like any advertising flyer. The points in the contract that were strictly disputed were as in bold above and it was spelt out very clearly what you required as proof (and you used words that match the BPA CoP, without which a contract is not compliant). And as you haven't seen this evidence you don't even know if this 'contract' is in date, is even with the current landowner, has the required wording you asked for 'strict proof' of, complies with the BPA CoP or not - and is it redacted or is all detail shown? You have no idea because you weren't sent anything.

(B) The Assessor also missed this specifically made point, so did their evidence rebut it? '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'.

Yet in her decision, the Assessor does not refer to this specific wording in the Operator's Notice to Keeper and rejection letter . The CPM sign (not visible from a driver's seat on arrival at the entrance anyway) actually talks about 'unauthorised' parking. The Assessor notices this word but says '“unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice”. I find that this indicates consideration and not damages...'

That is clearly NOT a contractual fee for 'agreed parking', not if they refer to 'Unauthorised parking'. And this point is proved by the 'breach of contract' wording that your original POPLA appeal specifically pointed out that the Operator used in their NTK and rejection letter - and as you haven't seen their case summary you have no idea what that said about the matter of breach/loss.

Which brings you onto the point you made specifically about the unclear (missing) signage which failed to make any contract with the driver:

(C)You included Photos of the site entrance with your POPLA appeal, where there is a sign indicating consideration direct from the Housing Association which has no mention of contractual car parking, nor fees nor breach of contract issues and merely says “Parking for Residents and Visitors Only”. The photos also show the view as the driver would have arrived and there are no signs facing the road at all despite the fact there is a pole there. The Assessor says 'There is clear evidence which shows that there was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions.' Well you have not seen any evidence at all and you have no idea where those signs might be placed, for all you know the Operator may have sent photos of another site, or a photo round the back well away from the entrance. You don't even know whether the Operator included a map/schematic of signage, and what they said to explain the lack of clear signage at the entrance (which is when any contract must be communicated BEFORE parking). After all once a point is made the burden shifts to the Operator to rebut it.

(D) The Assessor also did not consider your points thoroughly, no mention of:


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


All of the above being directly quoted from your POPLA appeal (as long as you definitely sent that version) none of them considered.










Nope, you removed the pics of the documents (Notice to Keeper letter and rejection letter) I think because you had not redacted your personal info. Can we please see the letters again now, suitably redacted?

And are you certain nothing like 'evidence from CPM' was emailed to you, if you submitted the appeal online? Have you checked your junk/spam folder?

Can I send them what you just wrote if I edit it so that it sounds like it's from me and not third person? I'm not smart in these matters and won't pretend to be so.

Also I tried to upload picture of the signage but the picture is failing to upload. can I email it?

Redx

I am no expert on appealing to the lead assessor but I would say yes to edit and send it asking for the verdict to be set aside and ask for the evidence pack etc seeing as you never received one in the first place, also asking for the lead assessor to have it looked at again too

as for photos, you can do as before and place them on photobucket or somewhere similar , suitably redacted in order to remove your personal info, then they can be linked to by a senior member on here

I have checked this thread and there is no picture of the PPC sign at all, only one of the entrance to the car park with signs high up on the left , and a picture of the housing association sign, so no picture of any PPC sign

the aim here is to be able to let us check things for you where possible, and to guide you in this appalling travesty and try to get it reversed

obviously you will have to help us do this, but most of the work can be done "back here" with you sending in and edited version of the above and letting members here see any evidence and guide you to a win in the second round

I hope that helps you take this forward, I also hope I have interpreted things correctly as I have your best interests at heart here, same as coupon-mad does , also a few others on here feel that way too

either way, you are not alone, despite being in Japan

regards