CPM ticket while parked at the allocated parking

safarmuk

Ideally leases need to be read in their entirety to be able to decide categorically, but as C-M says the bit you have extracted is in your favour in that your lease specifies a parking space. The trick is knowing if the parking space is demised itself, or whether a right to park there is demised, or whether the lease gives exclusive use of etc. etc. plus any other lease terms relevant to what the MA can and cannot do.

Only when read together can all that information allow someone to interpret an official opinion.

But as said so far so good.

raselmahbub

OK... I have now received at least 4/5 letters from this DRP people. Same letter, same threat... If you do not pay the amount, Court Action will be taken. They also give an example where someone lost a case in the Court.

How long it might take before it actually goes to Court? And when it goes to Court, will I be in anyway at fault for not responding to any of those letters?

Redx

nothing will come of IGNORING the debt collectors , its a stalemate and not relevant in court , if you are going to deny the debt , you do so to the peincipal, in this case the PPC themselves , as they instigated it

the PPC has 6 years to issue a court case using MCOL in england and wales

so 6 years is the answer

Umkomaas

Same letter, same threat...

Same advice - ignore debt collector letters!

How long it might take before it actually goes to Court?

Depends if CPM decide to go down that route. Could be tomorrow, could be next month, could be any time in the next 6 years. Could be never. We're into crystal ball territory now.

But in 2 and a bit years, they've issued over 100,000 tickets and in that time taken around 100 people to court. As my primary school maths teacher would say (after two blackboards full of long division scrawlings), 'That's about one in a thousand, lad'.

Go figure.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/UK_Car_Park_Management.html

And when it goes to Court, will I be in anyway at fault for not responding to any of those letters?

We've never seen any court criticise a defendant for not dealing with debt collector drivel, let alone penalise them.

safarmuk

UK CPM appear to previously (2015/2016) have been very small players in the SCC, however this year (2017) they have ramped it up a bit (which fits in with the fact they have been with the IPC for a while) but as said above, the %age of tickets pursued to court appears very small.

The only thing about that statistic is the %age is based on "total tickets" and not "total unpaid tickets" taken to court. However assume only 25% of the 100,000 tickets are unpaid and 100 went to court ... it's still a very small %age.

Also keep an eye out for an ITV Programme coming out soon related to UK CPM behaviour at a site in Oxfordshire ... you will find it interesting.

raselmahbub

OK Folks,
I am back again and it looks like I am the unlucky one to receive the court letter.

Received a court letter today from County Court Business Center after a series of letters
from Gladstones Solicitors.

Claimant listed as UKCPM and address of sending documents and payments is Gladstone Solicitors.

I have 14 days to acknowledge and a total 28 days to defense if acknowledged.

Total amount 240.86 including legal and court fees :mad:

Would appreciate your advice.

Coupon-mad

We will, once you've read the NEWBIES thread post #2 and told us you've done the AOS online as shown there, and then shown us your draft defence, based on the spoon-fed links there. We will help but this sort of post helps no-one, least of all yourself because we can't possibly handle these without the poster showing us their draft defence (not vice versa, we can't help from scratch).

raselmahbub

Thanks Coupon-mad,

I have just completed the AOS online!
I will start working on the draft and will post here in few days.

raselmahbub

OK I have drafted the initial version of the defense... mostly copy paste. Luckily one of the link in NEWBIES thread is similar to my case.

I have few important questions though:

• Point number 2 in the defense below. Specifically where it says Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence . I have received several letters from GS including a letter before claim. I don't know if I am confusing this with something else. Can non compliance with CPR 16 be used in every case? Can I or Should I just avoid the Preliminary section completely?

• I have not included the driver's identity related points. What do you suggest?

• How do I mention about all the correspondence I had with the letting agent in regards to not providing me with the parking permit at the first place. OR shall I just ignore it as this may not be relevant to the case at all.
• Also, do I need to mention anything about the appeal I did which was rejected anyway.

DEFENSE

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
   
2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
   
   
   Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Tesco Car Insurance with 1 named driver permitted to use it. The defendant is also the tenant of the flat no 32 of the residential area with a personal allocated parking space.
   
4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the parking bay no 32 (which can also be evident by the pictures taken by the UKCPM) in the secured underground residential parking of the property.
   
5. There is no agreement with Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non-display of any type of permit. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless the defendant has agreed to variation of the tenancy, which clearly he has not.
   
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. The picture taken by the UKCPM also proves that the vehicle was parked at the bay number 32. A copy of the lease/tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
   
7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
   
8. Accordingly, it is denied that:
   8.1 There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
   8.2 There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
   8.3 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
9. The car park has a gated entrance which can only be opened by the authorised people and residents of the property with a key fob. The defendant was also given a key fob to provide unrestricted access to the parking area and the allocated parking space. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper and the lawful tenant of the property [address] that the vehicle was parked inside the premise without any restrictions during the time of the alleged incidents.
   
10. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied). The only clear large lettering was 'PARKING RESTRICTIONS' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'.
    
11. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
    
12. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    
13. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
    
14. The defendant was provided unrestricted access to the parking area by the tenancy agreement and most importantly the security key fob to the gated entrance. Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver. The penalty charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.
    
15. In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.
    
16. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
    
17. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    
18. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

Appreciate your thoughtful responses.

The_Deep

If the court sides for you, consider asking for CPR27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable behaviour.

Your AST rights to quiet enjoyment of your property have been interfered with, you have spent time and money dealing with this, and your private data has been passed to debt collectors without proper cause.