CPM Parking Fine in Estate

Mike172

Was this sent off to POPLA then? I cant believe CPM rejected your soft appeal so fast. Ive waited almost 3 weeks now and had no response. Mine was sent via post.

Coupon Mad should I resubmit online? I rekon they are playing silly !!!!!!s having sent the soft appeal in the post.

Was it sent via post or online?

Umkomaas

Mike172 wrote: »

Was this sent off to POPLA then? I cant believe CPM rejected your soft appeal so fast. Ive waited almost 3 weeks now and had no response. Mine was sent via post.

Coupon Mad should I resubmit online? I rekon they are playing silly !!!!!!s having sent the soft appeal in the post.

Was it sent via post or online?

They have 35 days to respond with cancellation or rejection and POPLA code.

Did you get a certificate of posting when sending the appeal? If not, suggest you resubmit on line and get a screen dump of it to save on your computer as proof of dispatch.

Mike172

I cant find anywhere to submit a stage 1 soft appeal online to CPM. Did not get proof. So many conflicting pieces of advice.

Back of the NTK states the response will be within 14 days. Waiting for coupon mad to respond, but likely Ill submit the 1st stage appeal via post again, to the right address this time with proof.

Umkomaas

So many conflicting pieces of advice

I struggle with that statement about this forum. All regular advisers are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet here.

Coupon-mad

Mike172 wrote: »

I cant find anywhere to submit a stage 1 soft appeal online to CPM. Did not get proof. So many conflicting pieces of advice.

Back of the NTK states the response will be within 14 days. Waiting for coupon mad to respond, but likely Ill submit the 1st stage appeal via post again, to the right address this time with proof.

If it doesn't allow online appeals in the ticket then you can't, that's surely obvious! And forget the idea of getting a reply within 14 days. They have 35 days.

Conflicting advice? WHERE?

Mike172

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If it doesn't allow online appeals in the ticket then you can't, that's surely obvious! And forget the idea of getting a reply within 14 days. They have 35 days.

Conflicting advice? WHERE?

Sorry by conflicting advice I ment one person was telling me to get proof of postage while another wasnt. It was small things but the overall process was the same. Also Another telling me to wait an appeal when they ignore while another is telling me I should resubmit to make sure.

This is all my fault and that wasnt a dig by any means.

bartmatt

I was not to sure what to adjust etc, so I had a good read to and also read all the comments etc,

My appeal deadline is: Fri Dec 05 2014

Point 4 is referring to the NTK i think which I did receive but I do not understand this point so not sure wether to include or not?

How does this sound?



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) 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 on the inside of the road as you drive in. The other sign at the end of the road that the vehicle was parked is attached to a fence approx 2m in height. This sign is completely obscured when a van had parked in front of the sign on the night prior to when the photos were taken. 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) CPM have failed to establish keeper liability

CPM have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, CPM 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, CPM have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK.

I request that my appeal is upheld and that POPLA inform CPM accordingly that their speculative invoice must be cancelled

Thank You

bartmatt

? Any help would be much appreciated

Coupon-mad

bump for others to see, as it's 2am and I am off to bed!

bartmatt

Please anyone as only 7 days left?