UK CPM and IAS Appeals both lost

jronnquist

As advised in the sticky threads, I am now starting a case specific thread for my coming battle with UK CPM.

Summary: The vehicle in question was a van I rented to help my girlfriend move out of her apartment. She had an allocated parking space in the inner courtyard, but this was not accessible as the van was too high to drive through the access tunnel. There were a number of "guest spaces" located at the side of the building, but these were all occupied at the time. As there are no spaces or designated areas on the property for deliveries, pick-ups, etc, I had no choice but to park the van outside the main door to the building.

No ticket was left on the van. The first I knew of it was the letter I received form the van hire company, stating that they had passed my personal details on to UK CPM and that I owed them £15 for their efforts. The letter from CPM arrived a couple of weeks later at my own address.

I appealed directly to UK CPM, explaining the circumstances.The appeal was rejected out of hand. I then took it to the IAS, who also rejected it. Both organizations basically said the same thing; you broke the rules, you need to pay. The argument made by UK CPM in both instances was that if there was no way I could comply with their restrictions, I should have called them for guidance. The number listed on their sign is a premium rate number, but the sign makes no mention of this, nor of the rate of the call.

I was aware of the parking restrictions, having been a resident at the property myself in the past, so between myself, my girlfriend, and the two people helping, we kept an eye on the van. When my girlfriend spotted a UK CPM employee in the car park she rushed downstairs to inform him that we were moving. He advised her that we should leave the back doors of the van open to make this obvious. We did. But the crafty "enforcement" officer failed to mention that he had already issued the ticket.

I have now received a letter from UK CPM, demanding £100.

From what I understand, it is now time to wait for Gladstone to pick up where they left off with the "IAS" branch of their operation. Am I right to assume that I should do nothing until I receive a letter from them?

Fruitcake

Appealing to the IAS was a bad idea, but that cannot now be helped.

Yes you are now in ignore mode until you get real court papers. Do you still have a copy of the lease to the residential property?
Have you complained to the landlord or MA about this?

Have you complained to your/your girlfriend's MP yet?

This is what judges have said about residential parking, so you should be prepared to use this if/when you get a LBA/LBC/MCOL

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

The Jopson vs Homeguard Services Limited case, which specifically mentions loading and unloading, which is not parking. You will need to look this up as the link I have only appears to work from my own PC.

15 It was firstly argued on her behalf that she had a right-of-way to enable her to
access the property, and that the right to stop for a few moments or minutes to
put down passengers or unload awkward items was a necessary incident of
this easement. The position was analogous to the right to unload which was
the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in
that case was:

“To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.”

Upjohn J said at 332:
“I am quite satisfied that on its true construction the plaintiff is entitled to bring on this yard…vehicles and to transport from those vehicles…furniture or other chattels…into the auction mart.”

He continued, having dealt with some geographical questions:
7 © Crown Copyright

“Is he entitled to halt on the yard while the vans…are unloading, an operation which takes a half-hour to an hour? If the right which the plaintiff has under the deed of covenant does not include that right, then the right-of-way is virtually useless to him… The whole object of the reservation is for the purpose of…obtaining access… The plaintiff can…bring goods in vehicles to his auction room. If he is entitled to do that, then he must of necessity be entitled to unload them… The right…may be described as ancillary to the easement, because without the right he cannot substantially enjoy that which has been reserved to him.”

beamerguy

You are dealing with two scammers. This is all part of the great Gladstones Solicitors scam

Just prepare yourself for letters from cretin type debt collectors
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74439905#Comment_74439905

YOU TOTALLY IGNORE ...... NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER AND NEVER PAY THEM.

As the Gladstones scam unfolds, you will no doubt get letters from Gladstones solicitors .... the head honcho who dreamed up the scam

As solicitors (or pretend ones) they are highly incompetent
https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=GLADSTONES

waamo

Is this the same ticket as your other threads?

jronnquist

Fruitcake wrote: »

Appealing to the IAS was a bad idea, but that cannot now be helped.

Yes you are now in ignore mode until you get real court papers. Do you still have a copy of the lease to the residential property?
Have you complained to the landlord or MA about this?

Have you complained to your/your girlfriend's MP yet?

This is what judges have said about residential parking, so you should be prepared to use this if/when you get a LBA/LBC/MCOL

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

The Jopson vs Homeguard Services Limited case, which specifically mentions loading and unloading, which is not parking. You will need to look this up as the link I have only appears to work from my own PC.

15 It was firstly argued on her behalf that she had a right-of-way to enable her to
access the property, and that the right to stop for a few moments or minutes to
put down passengers or unload awkward items was a necessary incident of
this easement. The position was analogous to the right to unload which was
the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in
that case was:

“To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.”

Upjohn J said at 332:
“I am quite satisfied that on its true construction the plaintiff is entitled to bring on this yard…vehicles and to transport from those vehicles…furniture or other chattels…into the auction mart.”

He continued, having dealt with some geographical questions:
7 © Crown Copyright

“Is he entitled to halt on the yard while the vans…are unloading, an operation which takes a half-hour to an hour? If the right which the plaintiff has under the deed of covenant does not include that right, then the right-of-way is virtually useless to him… The whole object of the reservation is for the purpose of…obtaining access… The plaintiff can…bring goods in vehicles to his auction room. If he is entitled to do that, then he must of necessity be entitled to unload them… The right…may be described as ancillary to the easement, because without the right he cannot substantially enjoy that which has been reserved to him.”

Thank you for this!!! I have downloaded a PDF copy of the full judgement and saved it to my PC for future use. The case is entirely relevant to my own situation. Even better, the judge makes all the arguments in upholding the appeal that I made myself to the IAS in my own.

jronnquist

waamo wrote: »

Is this the same ticket as your other threads?

Well, my other thread on the subject was originally about the fact that Gladstone had taken me to court over two other tickets. Both had been issued to me on my own car while I was a resident at the same property, but having moved and failed to acknowledge this fact to Gladstone, I only found out about it when the CCJ hit my credit file. The subject of this thread -the rental van - was a ticket I received at the same time, and I incorrectly pursued this case in the same thread. Truth be told, I was holding on to the vainglorious hope that the IAS would see reason and put an end to the whole thing. Now this hope has been disappointed, I thought I had better begin a dedicated thread to avoid confusion (primarily my own).

jronnquist

So having read the full judgement in "Jopson vs Homeguard Services Limited" I am fairly confident that this document will serve as a sound basis for a defense should CPM UK decide to take me to court. The circumstances of the appellant (Jopson vs Homeguard is an appeal against the original court decision to uphold the claim against her) are more or less identical to my own. The only real difference is that she was moving a desk and chair upstairs and I was moving an entire flat downstairs.

Interestingly, the judge's primary emphasis is on the question of what actually constitutes "parking" as opposed to a temporary stay for the purposes of "access" to ones own property when moving things in and out. He points out - as did I to the IAS - that interpreted literally, the restrictions enforced by the parking firm (they are identical to the ones CPM uses at the location in question) would render the lives of the residents intolerable as they would apply to every vehicle stopping outside the property for any duration of time, including the post office, parcel and supermarket delivery vans, food delivery cars and motorcycles, taxi drivers escorting elderly people to their apartments, etc.

He also raises the question of the parking company's insistence that its signs direct people to contact them if they have any queries, and that it would have granted permission had this been done. This is the same thing UK CPM insisted on in both my appeals (although they did not state that I would have been given permission had I done so). The judge points out that the signage makes no indication that there may be "scope for periodic exemptions on request", but that "the whole tenor of the sign was to the contrary".

I know that appealing to the IAS was pointless as far as having it upheld was concerned, but I do think that should it come to it, a judge seeing that I have made every available effort to resolve the matter without involving the court will not look unkindly on this fact. Also, he or she will be able to see clearly from my appeals that both the arguments and counterarguments in those appeals are near identical to those of the judge and the parking firm in the above case.

There are other factors as well, although I do not know if these are relevant.

1. The contact number provided by UK CPM on their signs is a premium rate number. Calling that number from my O2 phone, had I even entertained the notion on the day, would have cost me £0.55 per minute. I know this because I tested the number after the fact and spent three of the five minutes the call lasted navigating the options menu, and then waiting for someone to take the call.

When the call was answered I informed the woman on the line that I needed to leave my rental van outside the building while we moved things up and down as I could not physically get the van into my girlfriend's allocated space in the courtyard. She asked if I would be blocking access to any other parking bays. I told her there was no way I could stop outside the building without doing so. She told me that in that case I would not be able to stay there. I asked her if that meant my girlfriend would either have to leave everything she owned in the flat, try moving her sofa, TV and bed in a car, or stay there forever. She had no response to this. In the end it transpired that UK CPM will issue a code against the license plate number of the vehicle that will ensure their people don't ticket it. No mention of this system is made on the sign, even though it would be easy to include and save a lot of grief. I believe this is probably the primary reason it is not included.

2. Because the van was blocking access to an empty space in front of the building, the four of us involved in the move resolved to keep a close eye on it from the window in case I needed to move it. Thus it was that my girlfriend spotted the UK CPM representative outside. She rushed downstairs to explain why the van was there and was informed by the man that if we were moving we should leave the doors of the van open to make this obvious to him and his colleagues. He said nothing about calling UK CPM to get a "code". Nor did he mention that he had in fact already issued the ticket.

3. As part of their defense against my appeal UK CPM included a picture of the van and one of their signs. The sign in the picture is mounted to the wall of a bin shed. Even as a resident, I have never seen this particular sign, nor did I (or would I have) seen it on the day as I never ventured that far onto the property. I made this point to the IAS (with a map and arrows included) but it made no impression.

Also, where (if anywhere) does the subject of the incestuous relationship between the IAS (United Trade and Industry Ltd) and Gladstone come into the defense of a case like this? I have seen the Companies House pages for both firms and Hurley and Davies are clearly involved in both (although I think they have now divided the two entities between them). It's hard to believe that something this blatant can be allowed to happen, but would it be relevant in a case where both entities are involved? Which is to say, is this something I could point out to a judge?

beamerguy

Also, where (if anywhere) does the subject of the incestuous relationship between the IAS (United Trade and Industry Ltd) and Gladstone come into the defense of a case like this? I have seen the Companies House pages for both firms and Hurley and Davies are clearly involved in both (although I think they have now divided the two entities between them). It's hard to believe that something this blatant can be allowed to happen, but would it be relevant in a case where both entities are involved? Which is to say, is this something I could point out to a judge?

Sadly, I don't think you could use this in a case, Your case is versus UKCPM who are still using the incompetent Gladstones to act for them.

You have been doing your homework very well, see this
All change at Gladstones and the IPC
https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html

Yes the Gladstones/IPC/IAS relationship is incestuous and Davies and Hurley started the scam and creamed off a lot of money from motorists who are/were very ignorant of this huge scam.

There are two points we do not understand ...

1: Government knows of this scam yet they still allow the IPC/United Trade and Industry Ltd to be an ATA.

2: The SRA has been told about this scam numerous times yet they appear to see nothing wrong, even though Gladstones flout the SRA principals time after time.

Who in authority allows this to happen ???

The Gladstones scam should be investigated by Action Fraud even though they have tried to hide themselves by splitting up their business model.

Sir Greg Knight appears to be a decent chap by introducing the new parking bill but is he wearing blinkered glasses ???

We will all be happy if Hurley and Davies are put to rest at her majesty's pleasure

jronnquist

Who in authority allows this to happen ???

I think the answer to this question may actually be the EU. From what I can see the UK legislation authorising the establishment of ADRs is in direct compliance to a directive from the European Commission.

beamerguy

jronnquist wrote: »

Who in authority allows this to happen ???

I think the answer to this question may actually be the EU. From what I can see the UK legislation authorising the establishment of ADRs is in direct compliance to a directive from the European Commission.

What does the EU say about scammers

jronnquist

I have no doubt the representatives of that bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy would condemn the practice with great zeal. The issue may well be languishing on the desk of some minion in Brussels, destined for a hardy debate by some sub-committee or other in 2024 or 25.