Mitigating circumstances - Pre-POPLA help needed (UK CPM, DRP)

malim

Hi guys,

A while back my car had broken down while doing a u-turn out of a private parking bay behind my house. I'd called for a mechanic to come sort it out but problem after problem occurred to do with the wrong part being sourced by the mechanic and etc. By this point I should have towed the car but did not understand the situation I was in, leaving the car there for a total of 7 days before it was fixed and removed from the bay. Please bare in mind that I had a perfectly valid residents parking permit for multiple bays within ~20 feet of the area so it was not a case of me trying to benefit from free parking.

UK CPM have sent me 9 'Parking Charge Notices' and 9 'Formal Demands', some roughly 10 minutes apart on the same day being charged separately! Along with this, they have sent me more than 14 DRP letters even though I have been writing back to their letters.

From what I have read around on the forums, this isn't a situation I can ignore and I'm assuming I'm at the stage where I should file an appeal with POPLA. I've put my letters to UK CPM in quotes below along with their reply in between. I haven't been able to find a recent thread where the poster's experience was able to help me out so I would be very grateful if you guys could take a read and let me know if I've shot myself in the foot with any of my letters. And whether I should go ahead for the POPLA appeal.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post, I will appreciate any help I can get very much!

My Initial Letter to UK CPM

Me_(Using_the_template_from_the_stickied_thread) wrote:

Dear UK Car Park Management Ltd,

R.e: PCN number: [pcn numbers]
I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

However, in my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

I would also like to add that many of the charges were issued without a 24 hour period in between yet they were referred to as individual charges. An example of this is PCN# which was issued on the 16th of Aug at 06:06am – ten minutes later PCN# was issued at 06:16am. There are multiple examples of acts like this which can be found by checking the PCN’s written at the top of this letter. This is evident that you are trying to harass and bully me into paying false charges so I will be seeking legal advice from my solicitor.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.

Reply from UK CPM

UK_CPM wrote:

Apologies for the images, I was not able to scan the reply. Also, it won't let me post images for some reason so you'll have to be patient with me and copy the URL's below to view them.
s14.postimg.org/r58jnf10h/IMAG0420_132.jpg
s12.postimg.org/sz4hvkwr1/IMAG0422_133.jpg

My reply to UK CPM's letter (still haven't heard anything back a month later apart from multiple DRP letters)

Me wrote:

Dear UK Car Park Management Ltd,

R.e: PCN number: #### and your reply to my previous letter, which was received on the 14th of October 2016 (Ref: MS/0916).

You refer to the case Parking Eye Vs Beavis but are failing to understand the significant differences in that example case and the current situation at hand. Beavis, did not have a level playing field – rather chose to represent himself leading the judge to even admit that he was ‘troubled with the decision’ despite agreeing with the concept of a large fine to act as a deferent. He explicitly stated that had there been a level playing field for legal representation, the verdict may have gone otherwise.

I, on the other hand, a tax-paying UK citizen with a completely clean record free of any kind of criminal activity, have already sought out legal advice who have pointed out many of the issues with the situation. I’d like to mention that Beavis ignored the charge in an attempt to gain parking within a retail car park. Whereas my car had actually broken down (due to a failing starter motor which had spontaneously occurred through no personal faults) while a three-point-turn was under way in Bacon street, on the second point of the turn, just as it was about to be reversed out. Immediate mechanical work was sought out on the spot which required parts that had to be sourced; these turned out to be the wrong parts and required extra time and money for the correct ones to be sourced. This is why the car was on the premises during the dates you have referred to. Had the car been able to start up and drive off safely, then it would have been away from those parking premises immediately.

I would also like to add, that at all times you referred to, the car had a valid Tower Hamlets parking permit on display for any A zone parking spaces – a plethora of parking spaces starting a literal 30 yards away from the bay in question. This permit allows residents to park for free of charge as long as it is valid, which is it was in this case so I’d like for you think about why a car with a paid [borough] residents permit would be left in a private bay when free parking for the car in question was available across the road (e.g.

and the list goes on). Referring to your correction about the issue dates not being the same as the incident dates – we would like to point out PCN## and PCN ##. The latter refers to the car being in the bay at 06:06 on the 8th of August while the former refers to a time a mere six minutes after the first ‘incident’ on the same day. So I will go back to my original point, this is evidence that you are trying to harass and bully me into paying false charges, how else would you explain something as ridiculous as two parking charges within the span of six minutes? We are willing to argue all of the above with full legal representation so we urge you to consider this letter very carefully. I have attached a copy of the invoice given to me by the garage for your reference.

Again, thanks for reading guys and would really appreciate any help I can get here!

Thanks!

Redx

edit the above to remove the pcn numbers

no identifying stuff needs to be posted on here, and should not be

if the pics have any personal details or references , remove them , redact the info and then start again

ps:- UK CPM are IPC members , hence the appeal you made, so POPLA is not an option and never was an option

they use the IAS kangaroo court , not POPLA

so you will not get any POPLA codes

you CANNOT go to POPLA

the newbies sticky thread advises you on IAS and IPC members

malim

Thank you for the advice Redx, I have removed all identifying information and will checkout the IAS threads.

Fruitcake

You can't appeal to PoPLA because they are IPC members.

You can safely ignore debt collectors.

Where precisely did the alleged events occur? Do you have pics of the signage for that area? I can't work out from the scammers pics what they say the problem is with where the car was parked.

Have you spoken to the landowner about this?

http://s14.postimg.org/r58jnf10h/IMAG0420_132.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/sz4hvkwr1/IMAG0422_133.jpg

malim

Fruitcake wrote: »

You can't appeal to PoPLA because they are IPC members.

You can safely ignore debt collectors.

Where precisely did the alleged events occur? Do you have pics of the signage for that area?

Have you spoken to the landowner about this?

Hi thanks for your reply. The events took place in the early days of Aug 2016, I will take pictures of the signage and get them posted here ASAP. I have not spoken to the landowner yet as I am unsure about how to even getting in contact with them - any advice on this would be much appreciated.

Fruitcake

malim wrote: »

Hi thanks for your reply. The events took place in the early days of Aug 2016, I will take pictures of the signage and get them posted here ASAP. I have not spoken to the landowner yet as I am unsure about how to even getting in contact with them - any advice on this would be much appreciated.

The Land Registry should be able to tell you who owns the land. The fee is a few quid.

Your lease may also say who owns the parking bays, but not necessarily who owns the land where the car was parked. Is there a management agency for the area? Either the landowner or the MA will have employed the scammers.
Do you have a residents committee? They might know as well.

What does your lease say about parking? Does it mention use of the place where your car was parked. (I'm having trouble working out precisely where the car was left if it is not in a car park.)

malim

Fruitcake wrote: »

The Land Registry should be able to tell you who owns the land. The fee is a few quid.

Your lease may also say who owns the parking bays, but not necessarily who owns the land where the car was parked. Is there a management agency for the area? Either the landowner or the MA will have employed the scammers.
Do you have a residents committee? They might know as well.

What does your lease say about parking? Does it mention use of the place where your car was parked. (I'm having trouble working out precisely where the car was left if it is not in a car park.)

Okay, I will definitely check that out. The 'car park' is a strip of bays behind my house with other resident bays nearby surrounding it. My residents permit will not let me park in the bay where the car was actually left. So the issue here is that I was forced to leave my car parked in a bay that wasn't designated to me (albeit empty like half of the other bays to this day).

beamerguy

Firstly, you are being scammed. just like the Nigerian scammers.

14 letters from DRP ???? Well known as scammers, well known as complete idiots but the PPC's keep using them ?
DRP are timewasters for any PPC.

Thereafter, its up the PPC to take furher action.

DRP do not understand that if they fail in their harassment, they will not be paid.
We all know in the UK there are some idiot companies but DRP really take the number ONE position.

DRP can only be classed as a "donald duck" company ... quack quack

Coupon-mad

Do not try IAS.

Just sit tight but gather evidence such as signage photos, in case they ever try a claim. So in fact at this stage I would ignore them and only take seriously a solicitor's letter or actual claim.