Ticket from CPM

Computersaysno

Is the assessor new??


Can't recollect seeing her? name before.


Or has POPLA been nobbled???

Coupon-mad

lesnmandy wrote: »

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

I already said how:

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).

We know people have had this problem before with another PPC and the case was then 'frozen' until the appellant had seen and reviewed the evidence. That's what you need but also a complaint about the actual decision because the interpretation of 'breach of contract' seems to err in law.

I have added a bit from another POPLA decision this week and have re-written what I reckon you should now submit, in the first person so you can send this (but only if you did actually include your signage pics in your appeal):




Dear POPLA Lead Assessor,

FORMAL COMPLAINT: POPLA REF XXXXXXXXXX
MY OUTCOME DECISION ERRED IN LAW REGARDING 'BREACH OF CONTRACT' AND FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL MY EVIDENCE AND APPEAL POINTS. ALSO, NO EVIDENCE WAS SENT TO ME BY THE OPERATOR, CONTRARY TO POPLA PROCEDURES

I wish to make a formal complaint about the above decision. My complaint relates to failures in the Assessor's decision and a failure to follow POPLA procedure by the Operator.

1. I was never sent any evidence from CPM whatsoever so this has seriously prejudiced my right to review their landowner contract, photos, maps and evidence pack. I formally request that this case is frozen and 'set aside' so that CPM must serve their evidence pack to me by a certain timeframe. I should then be allowed two weeks to review their evidence and submit any final comments to POPLA, which was the procedure I expected this appeal to follow. CPM are in breach of the POPLA appeals procedure and I would suggest this matter should also be reported by POPLA to the BPA Ltd. as well as POPLA formally reviewing the decision in view of point #2.

2. As far as I can see from the limited information sent to me so far, the POPLA decision has 'erred in law' and in addition, the Assessor failed to consider all the appeal points. Several points that I was careful to include have not been considered and these are key to the decision. These errors and omissions include:

(A) I 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 me! After all, any commercial employer/employee/agent/temp/passer-by could 'issue' a piece of paper on a windscreen - rather like any advertising flyer or note. It was spelt out very clearly what I required as proof (and I used words that match the BPA CoP, without which a contract is not enforceable/compliant).

How can I know if this 'contract' was in date prior to the parking event, is it even with the current landowner, does it contain the required BPA-compliant wording I asked for 'strict proof' of - and is it redacted, is all detail shown? I have no idea because I was not sent anything and the Assessor has not mentioned checking for anything beyond 'authority to issue a PCN' which I did not raise. Surely once a point is raised by an appellant, the burden falls upon the Operator to rebut it - so how was my specific point (in bold above) considered and how was it rebutted?

(B) The Assessor also appeared to miss this point which I made in my POPLA appeal: '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 the specific wording about 'breach of contract' which appears clearly in the Operator's Notice to Keeper and rejection letter . The CPM sign which I went and checked after the event (not visible from a driver's seat on arrival at the entrance) actually talks about 'unauthorised' parking. The Assessor noticed this word but said '“unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice”. I find that this indicates consideration and not damages...' Somehow she has concluded that CPM don't have to show the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss even though their NTK and rejection letter used the words 'breach of contract' and I pointed them out in my appeal as relevant.

That is clearly NOT a contractual fee for 'agreed parking', not if they refer to 'Unauthorised parking'' on the sign and even more damning, they refer to 'breach of contract' (their words) in their formal Notices! And I pointed this out specifically. The Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge and the rejection letter is fundamental is setting out the basis for rejection of my first appeal to CPM. I don't think CPM could have made it much clearer in these documents that their charge was very definitely for 'breach of contract' and indeed if they were claiming it to be a 'contractually agreed fee for parking' the charge would have to have included VAT and the Notices would have required CPM's VAT number (Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) refers). I have no idea whether the Operator tried to argue 'losses for breach' in their evidence pack because the Assessor overlooked the point. I say this was a basic error in law.

Which brings me to the point I made specifically about the unclear (missing, cluttered or unlit) ENTRANCE signage which I stated 'failed to make any contract with the driver' before parking:

(C) I included photos of the site entrance with my POPLA appeal, where there is a clear blue/white large font sign indicating consideration given to residents directly from the Housing Association. This sign has no mention of permits, nor contractual car parking, nor fees nor breach of contract issues and merely says “Parking for Residents and Visitors Only”. I am a resident and drivers of my car are authorised to park there. The photos I supplied showed the view as the driver would have arrived - and there are no CPM signs visible at all, despite the fact there is a pole and a lower wall on the right, at driver seat height, which could have been used for that purpose.

The Assessor says about the signage: '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.' I am sorry to say that I have not seen any evidence at all and I have no idea where those signs might have been placed at the material time. Were they prominent, were they lit, were they at the entrance - which after all, was my specific appeal point? The BPA Code of Practice states “entrance signs, located at the entrance to the car park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions which they must be aware of. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.''

For all I know, the Operator may have sent pictures of a sign on an unidentified wall somewhere - this is a site of flats with lots of similar brick walls and very few signs even when I have checked since. Any unlit sign on a wall could have been covered by a parked van and never seen on arrival, since the bay area is dark and covered and the driver of my vehicle reversed in. Have CPM shows 'clear signs' that were so prominent that they must have been seen by the driver at the entrance and/or along the short route taken before reversing into the dark bay undercover area? If so then they are not on their website nor have they sent them to me. I do not even know whether the Operator included a map/schematic of signage, and what - if anything - they said to rebut my point about the lack of clear signage at the entrance, which is when any alleged parking contract must be communicated/made, i.e. before parking.

Seeing as my 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 entrance signage is concerned, which is surely a fairly black-and-white matter for an Assessor, 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''. Case number 1773123003 in the same week as mine, 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 looked at a CPM signage picture that I have not seen myself, not commented upon its location and misinterpreted the effect of wording about 'unauthorised parking' or assumed that 'without permission' has the same meaning as 'without a permit'. It does not have the same meaning and the NTK and the rejection letter are clear that this was an alleged BREACH (their word in their document). The driver certainly had 'permission' in terms of accepting the parking already offered as consideration by the Housing Association sign at the entrance, which had no proviso, no terms & conditions & no warnings about a possible PCN for residents.

(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 their agency/business agreement, and specifically about any assignment of rights to CPM to take any action which impacts upon residents. In my POPLA appeal, 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 Court 23/10/2013. 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.'

None of those points seem to have been addressed. The decision reads as though the Assessor refused my appeal because she merely saw that CPM 'had a sign' (the location/wording of which, I do not know) and saw they 'had a contract' (the date, detail and authority wording of which is key) but misinterpreted the fundamental basis for the charge, letting CPM off as far as proving 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' is concerned.

I require the opportunity to review CPM's evidence, including my right to reply, and ultimately for the Lead Adjudicator to please review the Assessor's decision. Sending me a copy of the Operator's evidence by email would be acceptable, or to my address at: xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx and please advise me of my extended deadline to then review this evidence and reply to it.

yours faithfully,


NAME OF REGISTERED KEEPER



Questions for you first, please answer before you send this:

- did you attach your signage photo evidence to your appeal when you submitted it?
- Please, can we see a redacted copy of the rejection letter and NTK? These are no longer on your thread if you look back to page one here.
- are you certain no evidence from CPM has been sent to your UK address the DVLA have, or by email and landed in a junk/spam folder?
- was it dark when the driver arrived and parked that day? Are the signs LIT?

lesnmandy

Ok here are some snaps I got my parents to send me (god bless parents).

/s8.photobucket.com/user/ashg/media/image.jpg.html?filters%5Buser%5D=5884853&filters%5Brecent%5D=1&sort=1&o=1
This photo above is the one cpm have on their website as evidence against me.

And the rejection letter.
/s8.photobucket.com/user/ashg/media/image-1.jpg.html?filters%5Buser%5D=5884853&filters%5Brecent%5D=1&sort=1&o=0

Thank you very much everyone and I have already emailed popla asking for a way to make a complaint to the lead adjudicator.

No evidence I am sure. Some signs are lit (by nearby streetlight) others are not. Parked there the night before. Always used the same parking spot for years. Haha.

Glad it's a sunny day with fresh snow today. It's lifted my mood! Watashi wa yuki ga daisuki desu! Hope to hear more from you guys soon.

4consumerrights

Well their signage and rejection letter contradict themselves.

The signs indicate a contractual charge yet their letter refers to breach of terms and conditions.

UKCPM are also cited as being dormant at companies house

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07383860/UK-CAR-PARK-MANAGEMENT-LIMITED/companies-house-docs#other-documents

They have offices - New Road, Brighton.


James Randall one of the directors also has involvement with Ian Cordingley - (Parking Control Management (South) Ltd which does not have any directors currently appointed.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/913422971

Fergie76

Do any of the assessors have British sounding names?

nigelbb

4consumerrights wrote: »

The signs indicate a contractual charge yet their letter refers to breach of terms and conditions.

The signs DO NOT indicate a contractual charge. You cannot contract to do something that is not permitted.

These alleged contracts for parking are almost always a sham but even if they were valid then a contract requires minimally an Offer an Acceptance and a Consideration. There is no Offer of parking as the signs refer both to 'unauthorised parking' & 'parking without permission'. That is not an offer that is a prohibition on parking.

4consumerrights

nigelbb wrote: »

The signs DO NOT indicate a contractual charge. You cannot contract to do something that is not permitted.

These alleged contracts for parking are almost always a sham but even if they were valid then a contract requires minimally an Offer an Acceptance and a Consideration. There is no Offer of parking as the signs refer both to 'unauthorised parking' & 'parking without permission'. That is not an offer that is a prohibition on parking.

Thanx Nigel should have gone to bed at 3am meant to say

The signs indicate an attempt at a contractual charge yet their letter refers to breach of terms and conditions.

Computersaysno

Fergie76 wrote: »

Do any of the assessors have British sounding names?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Coupon-mad

4consumerrights wrote: »

Thanx Nigel should have gone to bed at 3am meant to say

The signs indicate an attempt at a contractual charge yet their letter refers to breach of terms and conditions.

Yep - but the OP used the version of the POPLA appeal I posted up on the previous page and luckily, I see that all of this was covered in this case, it wasn't a generic POPLA appeal. The Assessor missed it all.

@lesnmandy please send POPLA the email I wrote just above. Just email it by the middle of next week if POPLA have not replied.

lesnmandy

I shall email on (Japan's) Wednesday. Thanks so much everyone. I'll keep you all updated and if this comes off I'll be celebrating with plenty of sake.