Appealing CPM ticket - have POPLA code - Updated Please review POPLA Appeal

nswan

My ex wife has been given a £60 ticket by CPM for parking outside my block of flats for 10 minutes to drop my kids off for the weekend.

I live in an estate that is 'managed' by CPM but which has very little to no visitor parking.

She has appealed to CPM and has been rejected and has today phoned them for a POPLA code.

Is it worth our while fighting this as CPM say if we appeal to POPLA and lost she will lose the right to pay at the discounted rate and will have to pay £100. Needless to say she is worried about the charge increasing.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

4consumerrights

Oh dear -why on earth did you contact this company???

OP What is the exact name of the PPC on the parking charge

CPM (UK) Ltd went into liquidation last month and are no longer part of BPA.

Car Park Management Services websiste is offline and are listed as non-trading at companies house
Both are owned by director Philip Kelley

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/908465363

Guys_Dad

Tell her to wait till she gets a Notice to Keeper as we are not sure which regime - BPA or IPC they are working under.

nswan

Cheers guys.

Name on ticket is CPM UK Car Park Management

If she waits for Notice to Keeper wont she go outside of the 14 days they have given for any appeal to POPLA?

Guys_Dad

Search this forum for CPM within the last 4 weeks. They have left BPA and BPA = POPLA.

That's why you need to wait for letter/NtK.

nswan

Ok thanks. Seems odd that they would send her a letter offering her advice on appealing to POPLA if they left it.

Coupon-mad

nswan wrote: »

Ok thanks. Seems odd that they would send her a letter offering her advice on appealing to POPLA if they left it.

Hang on! You say you have got a POPLA code? Then you don't wait for anything else! We win 100% of POPLA appeals so follow our examples.

Did she really get a POPLA code over the phone? That would be a first.

Read the ''Newbies read this first'' thread. 'How to win at POPLA' is the link you want there, you must have missed it when you read the sticky threads first.

nswan

yes she rang them today as although the letter turning down her appeal mentioned a further appeal it did not have the reference.

I did read the guide but couldn't see something directly related to my situation. they seemed mostly related to parking charges, permits, 2 hour restrictions etc. I couldn't see nothing on stopping for 10 minutes to drop off children in a managed estate.

I'll take another look . Ta

Coupon-mad

nswan wrote: »

yes she rang them today as although the letter turning down her appeal mentioned a further appeal it did not have the reference.

I did read the guide but couldn't see something directly related to my situation. they seemed mostly related to parking charges, permits, 2 hour restrictions etc. I couldn't see nothing on stopping for 10 minutes to drop off children in a managed estate.

I'll take another look . Ta

That's because you don't word a POPLA appeal like that unless you are keen to lose! It is NOTHING to do with what happened!

You could use ANY of the example links under the 'How to win at POPLA' link. I suspect you haven't looked at that link. In the NEWBIES thread under the acronym POPLA.

nswan

Had a good read now and have a got a grip on it. Cheers for the help. Yes I was in the wrong thread when looking for help. doh.

nswan

Ok folks, here is my letter. Any comments welcome on making it better. Thanks



POPLA Ref:
CPM – UK Car Park Management
PCN no – xxxxxxx
Reg xxxxxxxx
Location – Farnborough Central
On the early evening of 24-11-2013, CPM issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly parked on a road where parking is not allowed.

My Appeal:
1. SIGNAGE : - The BPA code of practice states

The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.
Contrast and illumination
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area.. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material or similar to that used on public roads and described in the traffics signs Manual. Dark coloured areas do not need to be reflective.

In this instance, the appellant believes signage is not placed, angled or illuminated on the approach to Farnborough Central so that it is clearly readable during the hours of dusk or darkness, or without requiring the driver to look away from the road ahead. Road markings do not clearly demonstrate where the public highway ends and the parking restriction begins. CPM should provide detailed layout drawings and photographic evidence indicating where all signage is located. And that on the evening of the alleged offence all signage on entering the Farnborough Central area was clearly visible and not obscured. CPM should also provide photographic evidence that the building outside which the vehicle parked has clear view of signage without the occupants leaving their vehicle. It is contested that both of the above statements could not be satisfied on the evening of the alleged offence.

2. CHARGE : - The appellant insists that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by CPM and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The appellant also considers the PCN to be a penalty because CPM have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include anything in relation to their business running costs, signage or infrastructure, nor the POPLA fee).
The guidance offered by the Department of Transport set out in: Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges (September 2012 - Section 16 FAQs, point 1)

'Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalize the driver.'

No evidence has been presented by CPM to illustrate in any way how the charge issued by them in this instance relates to an actual loss. CPM has provided no detail of their administration costs for issuing this charge. Based on the available information of no known charges for parking in Farnborough Central the charge is disproportionate to the known loss of the Landowner and appears to be designed to penalize the driver,

3. CONTRACT :- NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

In their Notice and in the rejection letter, CPM have not provided the appellant with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

CPM does not own Farnborough Central and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. They disclose this and the existence of a Principal on signage and in their paperwork. There is no "relevant contract" between the motorist and CPM. Any purported "relevant contract", which is denied, would be between the landowner and motorist . Any claim for damages for breaching this supposed contract would need to be by the landowner for their losses. CPM are a third party agent with no rights to sue on this purported contract. They have no liability to the motorist with reference to the signage that apparently sets out the terms and conditions of the contract. CPM have wrongly identified themselves as the creditor for the purpose of POFA, the true creditor is the landowner and CPM are unable to rely on the provisions of the act.

CPM are required to provide an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, duly signed and witnessed that grants them the authority to take legal action either in their own name or on behalf of the landowner for breach of this purported contract . The appellant does not believe they have the authority in either case. The BPA code of practice para 7.2f makes clear that within any written authority it must state whether or not CPM has the right to take legal action, in other words the authority must categorically state CPM does or doesn't have this right. The appellant demands sight of this authority, and in addition requests that POPLA scrutinizes any said documents to confirm their authenticity.

The appellant again does not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in Farnborough Central, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.
.

The appellant submits that this purported charge is not legal and disproportionate and respectfully requests that POPLA allow the appeal to stand, and duly instructs CPM to cease any further action against the appellant.