Returning closed issue with CPP

The_Deep

Who 'looks a bit of a trouble maker' TD? Don't understand.


Someone who is able and willing to give the PPC a run for their money. Someone whom they would be well advised to avoid.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Who 'looks a bit of a trouble maker' TD? Don't understand.


Someone who is able and willing to give the PPC a run for their money. Someone whom they would be well advised to avoid.

Thanks TD, thought you meant a bit of a trouble maker around his residence and surroundings.

:rotfl: Clarification saves me having to report you to get you PPR'd - as seems to be the latest craze around here :rotfl:

Sorry to see you've been court-martialed over on pep!

The_Deep

But I haven't Umko the suspension ended two days before it began. I shall rub the Mods nose in it when I get back, may even go for the big one.

Marcyboy88

Haha, had abit of a chuckle reading the last two posts :rotfl:, thanks all.

I can confirm it's the CarParkingPartnership and the invoice even states that they are a member of the BPA.

One ticket has passed the specific day I needed to appeal and catch them out on 14th of July and the other is the 28th of July and I can still catch them out on that one.

Non have received a NTK which is weird, they were pretty quick about it last time. :sad:

The_Slithy_Tove

Marcyboy88 wrote: »

Tove, as deep says I am renting the property.
The space is owned by my landlord but is on street. I have the deeds for this highlighting the bay he owns. This was the compelling evidence last time.

In that case, all the stuff about contract/breach of contract/trespass isn't quite right.

The parking space is part of the demised property, and your AST and/or the lease allows you unfettered right to park a car there. Therefore the PPC is not even in a position to offer a contract to park, as you already have that right. So there can be no contractural charge or charge for breach of any such contract. Trespass is completely out of the question as you cannot trespass on what is effectively your own property.

You should be telling the management company this too, and tell them to stop letting their agents trespass on your land/property, else you'll be issuing a claim against them.

Marcyboy88

Hey Tove,

All that being said, that template is ok now?

Also, by management company, my agency? Or should I be complaining to the council?

Fruitcake

Marcyboy88 wrote: »

Hey Tove,

All that being said, that template is ok now?

Also, by management company, my agency? Or should I be complaining to the council?

If the car was parked on private property then it's nowt to do with the council.

The_Deep

Have you seen this?


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

Marcyboy88

Hi guys,

Thank you for the assistance so far.

I have received the parking statement with pictures to my house, addressed to the keeper.

Can I confirm with the post below?
(Additionally, as the land is owned by my landlord, it might be worth addressing that they've put permit signs between my bay and another last year saying you need a permit.)
(I believe this part...

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

Should be changed to something like this, as I don't think the signs fail anything.. they are just not true

The signs displayed state that all cars must carry a permit, however the council and CPP do not own this space, they are owned by a 3rd party landlord. As such by issuing your invoice onto their land you are tresspassing on their property.)
(Any advice on this wording would be greatly appreciated.)

Date 123456


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

Further, I understand you do not own the car park (Please see supporting documents stating my landlord owns this space and has given me full permission to be there as a tenant of his property) and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
MY NAME

Umkomaas

Should be changed to something like this, as I don't think the signs fail anything.. they are just not true

I presume you've checked every detail against the two sections of the BPA Code of Practice covering signage to arrive at that conclusion?

Don't 'mess' with the template - it's been written by someone highly experienced in this stuff. It's there to protect the keeper and to set the scene for an ultimate POPLA appeal.

I have received the parking statement with pictures to my house, addressed to the name of .......

The NtK was addressed to the keeper, surely? (Amend your input!)