CPM Asking for full name

Graciiee

I followed the directions and template from the NEWBIES thread on the page, and signed the letter with Miss Initial Surname, and then did the false signature. I put my address and stated that the registered keeper was not the driver at the time as I am not the owner of the car, just insured on it.
They replied stating that I needed to send my full name before they can assess my claim.
However, as the template suggest, i said that that letter would be my last correspondence... Do i resend the exact same letter but with my name and treat that as my final correspondence or ignore it?
Apologies if i repeated another thread, i couldnt actually see one with the same question!

Thanks for any help.

fisherjim

So are you the registered keeper?

Fruitcake

As long as you are still within the appeal window, I would resend the appeal with the keeper's full name. It's going to be rejected anyway so it doesn't really matter what you put.

Did you actually post your appeal rather than submit it online? Online is always best if that option is given, and then take a screenshot as proof of submission.

The appeal should be from the day to day keeper, or the registered keeper, not the driver.

Redx

Graciiee wrote: »

Do i resend the exact same letter but with my name and treat that as my final correspondence or ignore it?
.

yes , is the simple answer


they would have sent the NTK to the keeper, so that keeper puts their name on the appeal


just bear in mind they will reject any appeal out of hand anyway


so do not expect an appeal to succeed, its just to show that the keeper engaged with the PPC

beamerguy

Graciiee wrote: »

I followed the directions and template from the NEWBIES thread on the page, and signed the letter with Miss Initial Surname, and then did the false signature. I put my address and stated that the registered keeper was not the driver at the time as I am not the owner of the car, just insured on it.
They replied stating that I needed to send my full name before they can assess my claim.
However, as the template suggest, i said that that letter would be my last correspondence... Do i resend the exact same letter but with my name and treat that as my final correspondence or ignore it?
Apologies if i repeated another thread, i couldnt actually see one with the same question!

Thanks for any help.

CPM are as daft as a bog brush ???

The only information they are entitled to is that
provided by the DVLA. This will correspond to the parking
ticket number.

You have already said in your letter that yours was a final
letter, if they fail to provide a reasonable answer then CPM
must prepare themselves for a whooping in court

I sense that there are children at play in the CPM camp

Coupon-mad

You don't mean you called yourself the made up name 'Miss Initial Surname' do you? Just checking...

I put my address and stated that the registered keeper was not the driver at the time as I am not the owner of the car, just insured on it.

So you told them you are neither the driver nor the keeper...not a good plan. They can write to the keeper if you keep playing games like that.

KeithP

Grace, they have probably worked out your first name by now.

Graciiee

I am not the registered keeper, I am a named driver. However, I do not wish the registered keeper to get charged as they were not the driver at the time.
The appeal deadline of 28 days from the ticket finished just over a week ago. (They received the first letter within the deadline but I have not replied immediately so it is now past the deadline).
I posted the appeal because I could not find a relevant email address to send it to.
No I didn't sign it with Initial then surname, that was just for this site.
I told them I was the driver, not the keeper.
And yes, they had my initial and if they had the information from DVLA they would know I'm one of the registered drivers.

Are they actually likely to take this to court? The parking area had no signs on entry, no lines of any sort (yellow, bay markings etc) and I was parked for less then 20 minutes in an area I had parked in numerous times before, I just didn't notice the two signs which had been put up at some point as it is quite a large tarmac area.

Graciiee

This is the exact text i included in my letter:

You issued me, the driver of the vehicle NOT the registered keeper, with a parking ticket on 20th August 2018 but I believe it was unlawfully issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

There was insufficient signage
The car park in question had no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence, which demonstrates the lack of signage upon entering the supposed permit area. The lack of entrance signs goes against section 18.2 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, which takes into account the changes to private parking management following the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Schedule 4 to POFA 2012 is set out in Appendix C of the Code. Section 18.2 stipulates the necessity of signage upon entering the permitted land.
Quotations from the above mentioned Code of Practice are as follows:
‘In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.’
‘you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.’

(SEVERAL IMAGES DEMONSTRATING THE LACK OF SIGNAGE)

This image shows the only signage visible at the entrance to the road/plot, which is not UK Car Park Managements official signs, nor legible.

• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount you have charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as I was only parked in the supposed private parking area for 15 minutes total. I therefore feel the amount you are asking for is extremely excessive and unreasonable.

• Incorrect signage:
On the signage, the contract states ‘You must be parked wholly within a marked bay’. As there is not a single marked bay within the entire plot, this signage is inaccurate and therefore not legally binding. There is no indication for which areas are permitted and which are not, as there is no entrance sign and no bays, marked or otherwise. I therefore believe that the contract was not clear and therefore not broken, which does not make me liable to pay a Parking charge.
These images, taken one hour after the parking charge was given, clearly illustrate the lack of both marked bays and signage, therefore breaking the Code of Practice section 18.3 detailing Specific parking-terms signage, which states: ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.’

As stated in section 7.2 of , ‘If it can be shown that a contractual term was unfair, it follows that the term cannot be relied upon to enforce a parking charge’. I therefore believe that the incorrect and insufficient signage, in addition to the minute time spent within the supposed parking area deem the contractual term as unfair, and unreliable to enforce a parking charge.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Sincerely,
Miss G Surname

Coupon-mad

if they had the information from DVLA they would know I'm one of the registered drivers.

No such thing as a registered driver. The DVLA have no data about you, at all.

If it's the firm called 'UKCPM' then they are likely to try a court claim and you are likely to win with our help!

OMG I've just seen you used the AWFUL MSE article, and crap ''appeal'' (look at me I'm a victim, MSE has no clue) template rabbiting on about the story of what happened and the useless argument about 'no loss'.

Yet again, MSE should be ashamed of lettering PPC victims use that drivel.

We wish you had come to the forum instead - never mind, we'll help you now.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.