CPM UK car park management ticket

Coupon-mad

Same car park as you, Cazador?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4909337

I think there is a third thread from the same place (in the dark) too.

Cazador

Yes this is the same car park

Cazador

Hi everyone,


I have now had my appeal declined from CPM and got my POPLA code.


links below are for my original notice to keeper and declined appeal letter


i58.tinypic.com/rr8387.jpg[/IMG]
i60.tinypic.com/2q3t7pu.jpg[/IMG]
i59.tinypic.com/261fc6u.jpg[/IMG]




In the photographic evidence they have supplied, you can barely see its my car its so dark, and you certainly cant see the windscreen at all.


I still do not know who the land owner is. Even a google search comes up blank for a landowner.


I am hoping these points will help with my appeal, which I am starting to try and draft. any help with wording will be greatly appreciated.

ColliesCarer

Clicky links

http://oi58.tinypic.com/rr8387.jpg

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2q3t7pu.jpg
http://oi59.tinypic.com/261fc6u.jpg

ColliesCarer

Hi Cazador,
Although the signs try to claim contractual sum, the rejection letter states breach of terms and they also try to justify the charge as a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss.

Because of the contradiction between the sign and the rejection letter this will need some additions to the standard No GPEOL point but go ahead and get your draft prepared because most of the contents of other successful POPLA examples will apply.

I believe Coupon-Mad mentioned in an earlier post wording she'd pm'd to Detox so will be able to help with the extra points you need.

I love the bit in their rejection letter where they say

"If all motorists didn't park where they shouldn't, paid where they should, didn't overstay and followed the specified conditions at the sites we look after for our landowner clients, the following cost would not exist"

Failing of course to add "and we would be out of business"

Coupon-mad

To detox432 I said:

Try this and attach your pitch black signs photo evidence:


Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal:

1. Signs - no contract with Driver
See photos - it was dark & no signs were visible. There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed - so no contract exists. If it was self-ticketing I require proof that the ticketer was trained in the BPA CoP & an explanation of why no grace period was allowed and no signs were lit on site. In such conditions the BPA CoP does not allow ticketing.

Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear & so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it & agreed. The wording was unlit & unreadable. Even in daylight the terms are misleading, with a threat of clamping which has been illegal for 18 months, and words which dress up the charge as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 4.

2) No Locus Standi
This is a site 'agreement' limited to 'issuing tickets'. There is no assignment of rights to UKCPM to enable them to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor to form contracts with drivers.

I put CPM to strict proof of their signed/dated landowner contract & all the terms and restrictions and assignment of any rights in it. The contract must state that CPM can pursue drivers via court & show all requirements of 7.1 and 7.2 of the BPA CoP (without which there is no authority). This needs to be a full copy and not a basic 'site agreement' template sheet or redacted contract. NB: I am not challenging the 'issuing of PCNs' (anyone can issue a PCN and this is not the matter under appeal).

3) NTK - no keeper liability
The NTK fails to identify the 'creditor', state a 'period of parking' or meet the requirements of POFA. It could be 'UKCPM' (or '...Ltd' )or 'CPM' or 'UK Car Park Management' (or '...Ltd') all of which are mentioned on signs/letters/Notices, leading to uncertainty about who the creditor might be. Alternatively, the creditor could be the owner or lessee of the land, or a managing agent or CPM's client, or another party. It is not for me to guess who the creditor is.

It was an 'immediate' PCN - no Grace Period was allowed - breaching the BPA CoP. And omitting any 'period of parking' on a NTK breaches POFA 2012 and the NTK also fails to repeat all details from the PCN. Omitting wording from paragraph 8 of Schedule4 fails to create a complaint Notice to Keeper and there is therefore no 'keeper liability'.

4) Not a true contractual fee = breach of contract, requires a GPEOL
Although the operator states that the sum sought is a contractual term, the wording on the sign states ‘unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a PCN'. It is clear from this that breaching the specific conditions stated may result in a parking charge notice and therefore it appears that the amount sought is for those that are parked in breach. This amount would appear to represent liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

Also as the signs were not lit and I am merely the keeper (not driver) the terms cannot flow from the unlit/unseen sign but can only be interpreted from the Notice to Keeper - which again states the charge is for 'breach'. UKCPM must show it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss & I contend there was no loss.

5) Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
The sign & the NTK are ambiguous & contradictory. On the PCN & NTK the sum is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' yet the (unlit) sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a payment mechanism & a VAT invoice. There is none. This is not a transparent contract & is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise under the doctrine of contra proferentem, the interpretation that favours the consumer applies.

The OFT on UTCCR 1999:
Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. A term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.




Here is another one that I wrote the other day about UKCPM - it is similar in wording:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...0#post65148860

If I was writing one now I would also add in this great quote from a POPLA Assessor, Marina Kapour, from a POPLA case won in the last few days:

''The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the maximum permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay, provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park ‘in breach’ is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine preestimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge, and so it cannot be consideration.''

Cazador

Thank you so much Coupn Mad. I'll get this sent off with the appropriate photos.

They have asked me to email to them, I'm assuming I should also send a hard copy thorough the post?

Thanks

Redx

you dont email popla , you login online in their section for appealing and you can use the reference code and attach your appeal and any evidence as standard attachments

you can also post one off as well if you wish , as 2 is better than nothing , but the main thing is to get it lodged before the appeal deadline , if this is online you will get an acknowledgement email back from london councils/popla saying its been accepted etc

Sparsholt

I have sent my first appeal letter to UK CPM from the registered keeper and awaiting their response - I bet it will be exactly the same as you have received. In my case I have taken photos of the entrance to the parking and entrance lobby to flats as no signs displayed to say resident have to display permits at all times. Sign is hidden at back of car park. I have been researching and found UK CPM's website. Sorry as a new user I cannot add the link to the website.
Their clients can buy the signs which are standard with a small area for the client to insert their own words, in my case they added the bit about parking permits must be displayed at all times. Also the client can purchase the kits to self ticket and can waive tickets. It looks like the Director is Mr Lukhbir Singh Gohler from Companies House. Company number 07383860.
The managing agent for my block of flats could not provide me with a copy of the agreement with UK CPM and he told me the owner of the Freehold is Admiral's Wharf Ltd. Well checking out this company on Companies House shows me that the managing agent for the flats purchased the freehold and is the director of Admiral's Wharf Ltd!!! He also told me he could not get involved re the ticket when I now know he can waive tickets as per UK CPM website as he is the client. What I am interested to know is whether he receives a proportion of the ticket money and therefore his reluctance to get involved?

Redx

start a new thread if you want tailored advice for yourself please

the rule here is

one thread - one topic , that topic being the problems the OP has written about, not somebody elses agenda

thanks

use the blue NEW THREAD button on the top left of the main forum, near the green banners , or add it into your own existing thread instead

thanks