CPM - over 28 days since windscreen ticket in my own residental space - appeal to PPC

nigelbb

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

You are right that the MA's contract with CPM cannot trump the lease. But this contract is irrelevant to the lease. CPM are merely an agent in the employ of the MA. Everything is governed by the lease and in particular the scope for such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe

The claim for the 'fine' is not made in the name of the MA with CPM acting as agent however it's a 'fine' levied by CPM & payable to them because they claim the OP had a contract with them. For the charge to haver any chance of being valid it would have to be payable to the MA & mentioned in the lease.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

The claim for the 'fine' is not made in the name of the MA with CPM acting as agent however it's a 'fine' levied by CPM & payable to them because they claim the OP had a contract with them. For the charge to haver any chance of being valid it would have to be payable to the MA & mentioned in the lease.

No. They are claiming payment as agent of the managing agent who in turn is agent of the landowner.

If the PPC has no powers of agency then by logic, neither does the managing agent. Which, we all know, is bull.

In any event, arguing about the nuances and minutia of the law by logical amateurs such as we are has been shown by the Beavis result this morning to be a waste of time as judges inhabit a different world.

DandelionPatrol

nigelbb wrote: »

The claim for the 'fine' is not made in the name of the MA with CPM acting as agent however it's a 'fine' levied by CPM & payable to them because they claim the OP had a contract with them.

How do you know this? OP does not say that CPM are making this claim! It would be a big mistake to go to court and argue on this theory without evidence that CPM are indeed operating this way

nigelbb wrote: »

For the charge to haver any chance of being valid it would have to be payable to the MA & mentioned in the lease.

Either payable to the MA or collected by CPM as agents for the MA, I agree. And if the parking space is demised to OP, I would say that the penalty would have to be mentioned as you say. But the uncertainty is that the parking space appears only to be allocated by the MA, in which case, I would say the argument you need to make is that it is not a reasonable rule ...[or]... regulation for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe

BeanKLR

So I wrote to CPM and sent over evidence of the lease, unsurprisingly it has been rejected.

A list of reasons for rejection have been outlined but they have not mentioned anything about the lease in which it states I am allocated a parking space and there is no mention of a permit needing to be displayed.
As per my lease, I have the right to park a private motor vehicle in the allocated parking bay.

I have been given a POPLA code, is it worth using the lease for grounds for appeal?

Just to add, the evidence they have sent is not of very good quality and although they have sent evidence of the parking notice sign being displayed, it is not near my parking bay..

I am trying to put together what I should submit to POPLA but just wanted to confirm with you guys in the know.

Thanks all.

Guys_Dad

You can quote your lease and the right for peaceful enjoyment, that no amendments to the lease have been made to allow a PPC in, but I think that the much quotes escape clause in blue above would carry much weight both at POPLA and a court. In fact, I think a court would offer a better chance of winning, but go through POPLA.

Signage should go in to your appeal as should the point that you were parked in a space granted yo you as a leaseholder and that no changes to your occupancy rights should be covered by their such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe

They have not demonstrated how issuing anyone with a ticket for parking in YOUR space benefits you at all and acts contrary to your and others common enjoyment.

Umkomaas

Definitely include the lease point and submit a copy of your lease - as long as you're absolutely sure it backs up your entitlement to permit-free parking.

You include other salient points like no keeper liability, inadequate signage, locus standi, contract with the landowner, no commercial/social justification (this is not a retail car park as per Beavis).

There are some POPLA appeal examples linked to post #3 of the newbies sticky, use them as a framework, but please don't blindly copy and paste as that will quickly expose the fact that you've simply 'templated' your appeal.

You need to try to understand anything you're copying and pasting into the appeal - please come back and seek guidance if you feel you want to include something but don't understand it (but please don't see that as an easy way to avoid doing your own research on it first!).

HTH

System

So I wrote to CPM and sent over evidence of the lease, unsurprisingly it has been rejected.

Have you contacted the Residents Association or the Managing Agents? UKCPM's current scam is to let these run all the way to court and not turn up. So get it killed by the RA/MA and see if you can get them removed for harassing residents.

Coupon-mad

BeanKLR wrote: »

I am trying to put together what I should submit to POPLA but just wanted to confirm with you guys in the know.

Thanks all.

Show us your draft so we can help.

BeanKLR

OK here is the draft POPLA appeal, have spent a lot of time reading through other threads and articles and have come up with an appeal including some arguments taken from posters in this thread. Please let me know if any comments taken from your posts need to be removed and this will promptly be done before submitting.

I have added some queries in blue see below, so any input of these points would be MUCH appreciated :-)

I have spent all day on this and feel some work still needs doing but I guess it is a start.

Just one question, there is a lot of mention of post 3 in the Newbies thread to use the bit in blue, but am only seeing hyperlinks in blue or a warning to ignore IAS - am I missing something, is it this?

'I am appealing as registered keeper only, so cannot answer that question. The onus falls upon the operator, as the party demanding money from a consumer, to provide evidence from the day in terms of photographs etc. Please see my full appeal PDF attached'



POPLA APPEAL

A windscreen PCN was issued for the sum of £100.00 fro CPM on xxx for contravention 1: Not Displaying A Valid Permit.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this appeal will probe that I am not liable for the parking charge.
I am appealing as registered keeper only, so cannot confirm whether the contravention took place.


On xxx (32 days after the ticket was originally issued), I received a Formal Demand Notice (NTK).

On xxx (50 days after ticket was originally issued) I submitted an appeal to CPM and they replied stating that the appeal had been rejected.

Please find enclosed evidence of the parking permit confirming the keeper has a permit. - not sure if this is needed?


The grounds for this appeal are the following:
a) The car was parked in an allocated space as outlined in the lease
b) Authority to issue tickets
c) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
d) Inadequate signage
e) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
f)Proprietary Interest

a) The car was parked in an allocated space as outlined in the lease
The driver was parked in an allocated bay as outlined in the lease. As part of the lease of the property includes an allocated parking space, it is wrong for a parking ticket to have been issues.

The lease grants certain rights including the following:

---

Subject to observance by the Tenant with such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe.

3. Parking:
The exclusive right to park (a) a private motor vehicle (such term in this Lease shall be deemed to exclude a commercial vehicle) on any Allocated Parking Accommodation.
Right to park a private motor vehicle in the parking bay marked xxx.
There is no mention anywhere in the lease or the title deeds that a permit must be displayed when parking in the allocated space outlined in the lease.

Allocated Parking Accommodation:
The parking space in the multi-storey car park number xxx or such alternative space/garage as shall be notified to the Tenant by the Landlord acting reasonably.

---

The lease does not mention any penalty to be charged to the leaseholder for failure to display a permit, even if it is a reasonable rule to require a permit to be displayed.

b) Authority to issue tickets
Does CPM have any authority to issue PCN tickets when the car is parked in an allocated space as outlined in the lease of the property and in the title deeds?
Even if it is deemed reasonable to display a permit, it is unreasonable to try to charge someone £100 for not displaying one.
As outlined in the lease, the leaseholder is entitled to quiet enjoyment and as a result having to deal with CPM does away with this.

c) No keeper liability
CPM has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

In the keeper liability checklist, the following point is made: Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.

All that is written in the NTK is:
"If within 28 days we have not received full payment or drover details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle. The case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the debt owed."

They don't actually mention who the creditor is - is this grounds for the PCN to be invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with.?

d) Inadequate signage
CPM Photographic evidence has been sent to the registered keeper but it is very dark in these photos and makes it very difficult to read the sign.
Also have noticed that the signs have changed and am slightly confused.
On 17/10 the sign up was from Parking and Property Management Ltd, whereas today 28/11 the sign is now CPM (I have photographic evidence). I spoke to the estate manager and he said the parking company managing the estate was changing so am confused as if the PCN was issued in September why was there a parking notice up in October that mentioned PPM, not CPM.

e) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In its parking charge notice, CPM has failed to sufficient evidence to justify the £100 loss the landowner would face as a result of the registered keeper parking in their own allocated space. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs CPM has suffered as a result of the car being parked in the leaseholder's own allocated space, is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked in the multi-storey car park.

f) Proprietary Interest
CPM has not provided enough evidence of their interest in the land as they have no legal possession which would give CPM any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

I therefore put CPM to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between CPM and the landowner, not just another agent or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to CPM.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.
Yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

I've had a skim through it and make the following observations.

Asking POPLA questions like this won't work.

Does CPM have any authority to issue PCN tickets when the car is parked in an allocated space as outlined in the lease of the property and in the title deeds?

You assert they have no authority. They would then need to provide evidence to POPLA that they do.

No creditor identified - no PoFA - no keeper liability. There must be other things in the NtK that fail PoFA. Have they stated the period of parking -from/to? Have they stated how much of the parking charge was unpaid on the day?

Go through the checklist in the Parking Cowboys website - check your NtK word for word with PoFA Schedule 4. It has to comply in every respect, if it doesn't - no keeper liability. Links:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

If you identify any 'fail' - put No Keeper Liability at the top of your appeal.

GPEOL - you need to differentiate your case from Beavis in this section. Beavis was a retail car park incident where turnover of vehicles was deemed essential and the charge was acceptable (by the Suoreme Court) as a deterrent. Your case is quite different.

Not sure what the reference to a multi storey car park is for?

Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked in the multi-storey car park.

HTH