CPM Parking fine on leased car

outraged_

Yep, my own company and I'm the sole director, so it's fine. But I'm concerned they didn't treat my first letter as an appeal, but as a normal letter, even though I sent it to the appeals address.


Should I send another one and name it as an appeal?

nosferatu1001

It is utterly irrelevant whether it was treated by them as an appeal or not. It does not alter that your company has no liability in this matter.

outraged_

Coupon-mad wrote: »

UKCPM don't use CCTV.

If the pub do, then they can't share images with UKCPM for purposes other than the CCTV is there for. If the pub has CCTV it will be for security, and not for allowing a third party to scam people out of parking charges not owed.

Yes.

Mainly to complain about the aggressive nature of the person at the pub, and about the reputation of the place being dragged down by an ex-clamper with no valid/worthwhile independent appeals process; a notorious bunch of aggressors who sue people instead.

If you read the POFA Schedule 4 paras 13 and 14, you will find that the relevant period is 21 days from when they got the lessee/hirer name, to get a NTH to a victim, and it must be accompanied by 3 pieces of paper too. Even the 21 day deadline wasn't met in your case. You know what the 3 pieces of paper are, from your reading of Sch4, and I bet they were not enclosed (please don't ask what they are, it's important that Newbies read the POFA relevant paragraphs and understand why the PPC can't hold them liable in law).

Hassle in defending, yes, it certainly takes some work to fight these and win like we do (but you wouldn't be 'taking it to court' - the PPC would...).

What have you seen from the odd case lost over the past year or so, on this forum? I know there are hardly any here (literally a handful reported lost at a hearing), so I will make it easy for you.

People who lose pay about £150 - £175 tops. There is no valid sum of £60 that a PPC can just bolt on to a £100 PCN. The extra that people who lose have to pay, that takes it up to £150 or so, is merely a small court fee and interest. No huge costs/no solicitors fees.

No CCJ, as long as a losing defendant pays within 30 days of the Judge saying to pay. It is wiped - there is absolutely no effect on credit rating, even if lost. No risk at all, we would not encourage people to do something that puts them at risk, or that we would not do ourselves.

So just double checking, I've read Sch4 and the 3 pieces of paper you mean are the ones that must accompany the NTH right? The bit "together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) "

Coupon-mad

Yes that's correct - and we bet there was nothing attached.

And they had only 21 days to get the NTH & all statutory attachments to you, counting from when they heard from Arval. Seems they failed that deadline.

outraged_

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes that's correct - and we bet there was nothing attached.

And they had only 21 days to get the NTH & all statutory attachments to you, counting from when they heard from Arval. Seems they failed that deadline.

Yep, absolutely nothing attached and outside of the 21 days. Effing crooks, makes me so cross!!


Thank you SO MUCH for your help. Writing another letter and now calling it an appeal.

outraged_

[FONT=&quot]My letter today. Any suggested changes before I post it?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This appeal is being sent again, as it seems you failed to treat my first communication sent on 18th of September as an appeal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ (PoFA) Schedule 4, paragraph 14 states that the relevant period from which you can pursue keeper's liability on a hire vehicle is “a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed”. The alleged incident occurred on 7 August 2018 and the lease company passed our details to you on 21 August 2018. Your Notice to Keeper is dated 12 September 2018 and I only received it on 17 September 2018. You have not met the strict 21 day’s deadline to pursue us as a keeper and hence this charge is invalid.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simply the above would suffice to discredit your claim, however, even if you had met that deadline, you haven’t met other strict legal requirements.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I draw your attention specifically to PoFA schedule 4, paragraph 9 para 9 (2)(a):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your Notice to Keeper does not specify the land, it does not even give a valid address or a post code. All it says is ZZZ, which is obviously not a valid address.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To be able to pursue XXX Ltd as a keeper you should also have sent a Notice to Hirer, in accordance with the same schedule 4, paragraph 14 (2):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](…)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2)The conditions are that—[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For the purposes of the current appeal, I will also print a copy of the relevant documents that should have been sent with the Notice to Hirer:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](b)a copy of the hire agreement; and[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]None of the above conditions were met and therefore your claim is void.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Should you fail to cancel this so called “PCN”, I will complain in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Formal note:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yours faithfully[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

OK, be careful to describe your company as the hirer.

Throw in Beckham and Gidden, like in my post here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5901594/advice-on-witness-statement-for-non-compliant-and-out-of-time-ntk-case

That will addle their tiny brains. And start invoicing them on headed notepaper, as you are writing as a company - charge them the same rate as Arval charge you per letter, starting with this one (invoice attached) and do that every time your company replies.

DON'T call it an appeal.

Call it a dispute and warning of your charge per letter. And once you have sent a few letters, send the PPC a Letter before Claim for your losses, (your invoices plus the Arval charge).

outraged_

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, be careful to describe your company as the hirer.

Throw in Beckham and Gidden, like in my post here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5901594/advice-on-witness-statement-for-non-compliant-and-out-of-time-ntk-case

That will addle their tiny brains. And start invoicing them on headed notepaper, as you are writing as a company - charge them the same rate as Arval charge you per letter, starting with this one (invoice attached) and do that every time your company replies.

DON'T call it an appeal.

Call it a dispute and warning of your charge per letter. And once you have sent a few letters, send the PPC a Letter before Claim for your losses, (your invoices plus the Arval charge).

I'm always writing in the letterhead, and not writing my name, just the company name.


Why not call it a hirer if it is a lease?

Coupon-mad

Why not call it a hirer if it is a lease?

I didn't say not to call your company the hirer - quite the reverse. I said DO!

I did say not to call the letter an appeal.

You need them to read it more as a letter enclosing an invoice, and a dispute that clearly tells them you KNOW your company cannot be liable so UKCPM are wasting your time and will be liable for your losses.

You do not want them to treat it as an appeal, for which they can send a template 'rejection' offering the IAS! Nonono.

You want them to take your company invoices seriously.