CPM Parking Fine in Estate

bartmatt

Great,

Thank you for your help, very much appreciated.

So you think I should go with your letter instead of the new longer template that is in the newbies thread?

Thanks

bartmatt

OK, thanks for that.

I will send your version as short and sweet.

Thanks again, I will keep informed what happens next

bazster

The newer, longer one does have the interesting aspect of cancelling the contract. This company likes to play silly beggars by pretending that its penalty is really a contractually-agreed charge, so if they say it's a contract, you say it's cancelled!

bartmatt

I have today received the reply.

To my surprise they rejected the appeal

I have attached the letter, any help now would be much appreciated

Thank you in advance

Umkomaas

Did they send you a POPLA appeal form with a 10-digit verification code on it?

EDIT - just spotted the code in all their references at the top of the letter. Designed to be missed!

You need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 and click on the blue 'How to Win at POPLA' link and find a recent CPM appeal, or if not one available, a recent appeal for a windscreen ticket PCN.

Also read the recent POPLA Decisions sticky. There's a wealth of information in those two stickies.

bartmatt

Is there anything that you think I need to change?

Thank You

---

Dear POPLA Assesor,

Re 123456
POPLA ref 123456

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;

1) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
2) Contract with Landowner
3) Inadequate Signage
4) The alleged contravention did not occur

1) a) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach

The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that the charge is for being "in contravention of" and having "breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that

"The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the 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 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 pre estimate 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".

I would also highlight POPLA appeal reference 9663053967 where an initially refused appeal against the same Operator who again, made the same attempt to describe the charge as a contractually agreed fee on their signage was allowed by the Lead Adjudicator. It was found that the charge was a penalty and as such was not a genuine pre estimate of loss. I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking without displaying a valid permit” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practice states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA 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.

On the day in question, a permit had been paid for, there was no damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount is charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss to show how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach.
Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur.

I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach and as I have stated earlier - there was no initial loss.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that

"the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified".

In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

"the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant".

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can be neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2) Contract with Landowner

The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA code of practice, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provide a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

3) Inadequate Signage

Furthermore, there is only 1 visible on entering the development which is placed approx 2m up a lamp post on the opposite side of the road as you drive in. The only other sign at the end of the road that the vehicle was parked is attached to a bollard approx 1m in height. this sign is completely obscured should a car park in front of it. The BPA code of practice February 2014 clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".

I assert that being unable to read the detail on the sign visible on entry without stopping your vehicle and having only one other sign located as described, which may or may not be visible depending on which spaces are occupied at the time of parking, breaches this code. One sign is not easy to read without impeding the flow of traffic behind you and the other is inconspicuous. The photograph supplied at the rejection letter stage is not one that is located at the relevant end of the development nor is it one that would have been visible on the route taken.

I therefore require that the Operator submit evidence of the "clear and prominent signage throughout the development" referred to in their rejection letter in the form of site maps and photographs clearly indicating the location and height of said signage at the time of the alleged breach.

I have taken photographs myself today for the purpose of rebuttal should the need arise and would once again remind the Operator of the requirement to submit copies of any evidence to the Appellant allowing sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

A new permit had been purchased from the operator who had given their permission for the vehicle to be parked, whilst awaiting them to fulfill their responsibilities and supply the permit, by displaying in the windscreen an authorisation code provided by them. This verbal contract is relied on and supercedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

If CPM wish to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof of the contrary of this assertion:
I assert that, on the date in question, the authorisation code supplied by the operator was displayed in the windscreen, consequently the vehicle was parked with the permission of the Operator and therefore no breach of the parking terms occurred.

If CPM are unable to rebut my challenge then I submit that my assertion that the contravention did not take place is upheld.

Thank You

---

Coupon-mad

Here I would get rid of the bit in bold as this isn't VCS so you don't need to say which PPC it was about:

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that

And you need to work out when day 56 is, counting from the parking event and make sure you submit your POPLA appeal at or after that day - providing the POPLA code is valid for the whole of November (check it in post #3 of the Newbies thread).

Like here in the penultimate paragraph of the POPLA appeal shown in post #18:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66957933#Comment_66957933

Use the paragraph starting 'Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper....' and change it to 'CPM' and...carefully wait and bide your time before submitting your POPLA appeal, so CPM can't send you a NTK in time! You can't lose if you do that. It's all explained in that thread!

Oh, and I would also add in conclusion that you feel you must draw POPLA's attention to the sharp practice (banned by Mr Greenslade clearly in the POPLA Annual Report and in Newsletters) of hiding a POPLA code as a 'ref' at the top of a letter and just mentioning POPLA in passing in some blurb about paying at the end of a letter, with no explanation nor clear pointing out of the verification code. As such, when you prevail you ask that POPLA raise this one with the BPA as this cannot be allowed to continue. A less well researched appellant would not know what POPLA was, nor what the hidden code up the top even meant.

bartmatt

Parking Event was on 30th October and Appeal deadline is 5th December:

I have made some amendments as said by coupon-mad.

Point 4 i do not think relates to this so should I remove it?

How about this?

Thanks


Dear POPLA Assesor,

Parking Charge Notice Ref: 123456
Ref: 123456
POPLA Ref: 123456

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;

1) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
2) Contract with Landowner
3) Inadequate Signage
4) The alleged contravention did not occur
5) CPM have failed to establish keeper liability

1) a) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach

The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that the charge is for being "in contravention of" and having "breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that

"The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the 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 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 pre estimate 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".

I would also highlight POPLA appeal reference 9663053967 where an initially refused appeal against the same Operator who again, made the same attempt to describe the charge as a contractually agreed fee on their signage was allowed by the Lead Adjudicator. It was found that the charge was a penalty and as such was not a genuine pre estimate of loss. I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking without displaying a valid permit” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practice states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA 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.

On the day in question, there was no damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount is charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss to show how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach.
Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur.

I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach and as I have stated earlier - there was no initial loss.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal that

"the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified".

In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

"the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant".

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can be neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2) Contract with Landowner

The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA code of practice, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provide a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

3) Inadequate Signage

Furthermore, there is only 1 visible on entering the development which is placed approx 2m up a lamp post on the opposite side of the road as you drive in. The only other sign at the end of the road that the vehicle was parked is attached to a bollard approx 1m in height. this sign is completely obscured should a car park in front of it. The BPA code of practice February 2014 clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".

I assert that being unable to read the detail on the sign visible on entry without stopping your vehicle and having only one other sign located as described, which may or may not be visible depending on which spaces are occupied at the time of parking, breaches this code. One sign is not easy to read without impeding the flow of traffic behind you and the other is inconspicuous. The photograph supplied at the rejection letter stage is not one that is located at the relevant end of the development nor is it one that would have been visible on the route taken.

I therefore require that the Operator submit evidence of the "clear and prominent signage throughout the development" referred to in their rejection letter in the form of site maps and photographs clearly indicating the location and height of said signage at the time of the alleged breach.

I have taken photographs myself today for the purpose of rebuttal should the need arise and would once again remind the Operator of the requirement to submit copies of any evidence to the Appellant allowing sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

A new permit had been purchased from the operator who had given their permission for the vehicle to be parked, whilst awaiting them to fulfill their responsibilities and supply the permit, by displaying in the windscreen an authorisation code provided by them. This verbal contract is relied on and supercedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

If CPM wish to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof of the contrary of this assertion:
I assert that, on the date in question, the authorisation code supplied by the operator was displayed in the windscreen, consequently the vehicle was parked with the permission of the Operator and therefore no breach of the parking terms occurred.

If CPM are unable to rebut my challenge then I submit that my assertion that the contravention did not take place is upheld.

5) CPM have failed to establish keeper liability

POFA 2012 does not apply because the land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If CPM argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the land is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon CPM to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.

I feel you must draw POPLA's attention to the sharp practice (banned by Mr Greenslade clearly in the POPLA Annual Report and in Newsletters) of hiding a POPLA code as a 'ref' at the top of a letter and just mentioning POPLA in passing in some blurb about paying at the end of a letter, with no explanation nor clear pointing out of the verification code. As such, when you prevail you ask that POPLA raise this one with the BPA as this cannot be allowed to continue. A less well researched appellant would not know what POPLA was, nor what the hidden code up the top even meant.

Thank You

Umkomaas

Point 4 i do not think relates to this so should I remove it?

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

A new permit had been purchased from the operator who had given their permission for the vehicle to be parked, whilst awaiting them to fulfill their responsibilities and supply the permit, by displaying in the windscreen an authorisation code provided by them. This verbal contract is relied on and supercedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

If CPM wish to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof of the contrary of this assertion:
I assert that, on the date in question, the authorisation code supplied by the operator was displayed in the windscreen, consequently the vehicle was parked with the permission of the Operator and therefore no breach of the parking terms occurred.

If CPM are unable to rebut my challenge then I submit that my assertion that the contravention did not take place is upheld.

If it makes absolutely no sense to your situation then leave it out.

POFA 2012 does not apply because the land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If CPM argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the land is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon CPM to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.

This is the wrong insertion that Coupon-mad was referring to, surely? This appeal point above would apply to an airport, railway or harbour/port. Change it to this (obviously change Meteor to CPM):

Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Meteor appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends reps against a windscreen ticket. But in the schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter.) Therefore even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence, Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK.

You seem to be in a bit of a rush with this. You need to carefully read through your next draft and ask yourself, does this make sense in relation to my parking event, and if you are satisfied, only then post it up here for final critique by regulars.

And please don't rush things and get ahead of the timescale Coupon advises.

Coupon-mad

Humpfff, yes I made it clear NOT that irrelevant stuff about 'relevant land'!

Use the paragraph starting 'Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper....' and change it to 'CPM' and.

And why the rush seeing as I have said why you MUST delay this a bit.