CPM Parking ticket & County Court Business Centre Claim Help

mfwx

Hi,

I received a parking ticket through the post from CPM (UK Car Park Management) on the 4th January because the driver had parked in a carpark behind the shop he/she had gone in to. The carpark doesn't require you to pay, but I think it's for staff?

Stupidly I ignored the letters from them and the subsequent letters from DRP (Debt recovery plus) and Gladstones Solicitors.

I have since received a Claim from the County Business Centre (Issue date 8th November 2018) and I have until the 22nd the acknowledge the claim. Which I will be doing online using the acknowledgement advice on the newbie thread.

Am I right to acknowledge the claim online? and where do I go from here?

Thanks in advance.

nosferatu1001

Yes of course you do what the newbies thread says. Online is instant and confirmed there and then.
Edit your post so the driver cannot be inferred.

mfwx

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Yes of course you do what the newbies thread says. Online is instant and confirmed there and then.
Edit your post so the driver cannot be inferred.

I have acknowledged the claim online

What shall I edit out of my post?

Thank you

KeithP

mfwx wrote: »

I have since received a Claim from the County Business Centre (Issue date 8th November 2018).

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

mfwx wrote: »

What shall I edit out of my post?

The first sentence of your opening post might be better if it were something like:

I received a parking ticket through the post from CPM (UK Car Park Management) on the 4th January because the driver had parked in a carpark behind the shop he/she had gone in to.

The_Deep

For how much are they claiming?

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

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future.

mfwx

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.



The first sentence of your opening post might be better if it were something like:

I received a parking ticket through the post from CPM (UK Car Park Management) on the 4th January because the driver had parked in a carpark behind the shop he/she had gone in to.

Thank you for the reply.

I am stuck as to how I'm going to defend. Theres so many reasons out there and I'm getting a bit confused.

The_Deep wrote: »

For how much are they claiming?

Amount claimed - £170.25
Court fee - £25
Legal representative's cost - £50
Total amount - £245.25

Coupon-mad

You will get more help when YOU show US a draft defence, first. There is no point posting that you do not know what to say in defence, when there are dead simple examples like the ones by bargepole - how can anyone not understand how to use/adapt that template?

No link. Please read the NEWBIES thread post #2 example defences again.

mfwx

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You will get more help when YOU show US a draft defence, first. There is no point posting that you do not know what to say in defence, when there are dead simple examples like the ones by bargepole - how can anyone not understand how to use/adapt that template?

No link. Please read the NEWBIES thread post #2 example defences again.

I have found one on another thread and edited it. Any help is hugely appreciated.

A bit of background for the 'PCN' - The car park that I had parked in is on the side of a council car park, it is not clear that it has nothing to do with the council car park. There aren't any signs at the entrance, it's just a dropped kerb. On the wall there are 2 small signs stating 'Authorised vehicles only - A valid permit must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times. No parking outside of designated parking area / parking bay. If unsure please seek advice from CPM or refrain from parking'

There aren't any clear parking bays and the evidence is two photos from the rear of the vehicle (Taken quite a distance away, you can't see the number plate at all, let alone the signs)


1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).!

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “Unauthorised Parking” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.!!

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private car park where I had pulled over, not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

7. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.!!The signs visible in the photographic evidence are too high and the text too small for a driver to see whilst in the vehicle.

8. The only sign was attached to rear of a shop, where there were other equally unremarkable signs. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking in the car park where there aren’t any clear parking bays. There was no nothing about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.

9. The photographic evidence was taken by the claimant whilst hiding behind a vehicle at the rear of mine without any attempt to talk to me whilst I was sat in it to tell me I needed to move.


10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.!!

11. No terms were seen because the car was photographed before I had even set foot out of the car. I was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

12. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

13. The Claimant did not comply with the Part B, section 15 of the Code of Practice regarding grace periods: The photographic evidence submitted by UK Car Mark Management are date and time stamped.!It shows the vehicle at 12:12:08 from the rear. It then shows the vehicle, again from the rear at 12:13:22, just 14 seconds after the first photograph was taken. I refer to case!Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012)!in which it is agreed that the claimant was responsible for mitigating the losses to the landowner. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person that they needed to move the car, but failed to do so.

14. The Claimant may try to rely upon!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67,!('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.

15. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

16. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.!

17. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.!

18. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.!

19. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

20. I refer to case!Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012)!in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person to move on, but failed to do so.

21. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.!!

22. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

23. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

mfwx

Bumpppppppp

The_Deep

£245 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add- ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

mfwx

BUMP - I need to submit my defence in the next couple of days so any help would be grateful.