Uk-cpm, leased car, no docs

aarkadian

Hi All

Some time ago I got a PCN from UK-CPM. The car is leased, and UK-CPM had written to the leasing company and got my details that way. After reading advice here, and because UK-CPM hadn’t sent me any of the additional documents from the lease company as required by POFA, I wrote back to them based on an example given by Coupon-mad (thanks):

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by UK- Car Park Management Ltd (“UK-CPM”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.



You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why UK-CPM’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.



Given that UK-CPM has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service so that I may escalate the matter.



Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the IPC's Code of Practice.

They have written back with what looks like a standard rejection letter but with this point about POFA:

Important Note: The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 clearly states that a Notice to Hirer must be given to the hirer within 21 days beginning with the day after that on which documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor. UK CPM can confirm that a transfer of liability was completed on the [date] and a postal PCN was then dispatched to the address listed above on the same day.

They haven't mentioned the other documents they should have sent.

They did write this other paragraph about the IAS but I missed it on first reading and I am now passed the 21 days limit after their rejection.

The Independent Appeals Service (link) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.

The question now is what should I do next? I am thinking of writing to them to explain their error in more detail and repeating the request to cancel the charge. I am also thinking of lodging an appeal with the IAS even though I am late.

My thanks for your thoughts.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Fruitcake

Once you have made the initial appeal to an IPC scammer, you are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers.

There is nothing more you can do at this stage. If you move within six years of the alleged event then you will need to tell the scammers.

Other than that the only things left to do are complain to the landowner and your MP about this unregulated scam.

The advice on MSE is never to bother with an appeal to the IAS kangaroo court.

Coupon-mad

Same as this one about another IPC firm, about a hire/leased car:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5932937/update-29-01-i-need-some-help-with-a-parking-fine-from-myparkingcharge-co-uk-for-a-hired-vehicle

The PPC cannot hold you liable as hirer, as you are correct, they omitted the enclosures that the POFA requires, with a NTH.

But there is no appeal worth trying so this will be a defence in court, to win in the end.

aarkadian

I will wait to see what happens.


Thank you all. It's great to know that you good people are out there and willing to help.

aarkadian

Hi again


A bit more detail and one further question.


The car is actually leased to my wife's company, for her use, and I am a named driver and was driving it at the time. My wife would rather this would just go away, and she can get her company to pay, but I'd rather line UK-CPM's pockets and would prefer to fight it in court if necessary.


The problem is that UK-CPM and Gladstone's solicitors are addressing correspondence to my wife's company, because they don't know who was driving at the time. Can they be diverted to writing to me, and taking me to court instead of her company (if they take it that far) and is this in any way unwise?



Thanks for your help

aarkadian

Correction:


The car is actually leased to my wife's company, for her use, and I am a named driver and was driving it at the time. My wife would rather this would just go away, and she can get her company to pay, but I'd rather NOT line UK-CPM's pockets and would prefer to fight it in court if necessary.


The problem is that UK-CPM and Gladstone's solicitors are addressing correspondence to my wife's company, because they don't know who was driving at the time. Can they be diverted to writing to me, and taking me to court instead of her company (if they take it that far) and is this in any way unwise?


Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

The problem is that UK-CPM and Gladstone's solicitors are addressing correspondence to my wife's company, because they don't know who was driving at the time. Can they be diverted to writing to me, and taking me to court instead of her company (if they take it that far)

Make no mistake, with UKCPM and Gladstones (two horrendous & notorious firms) this WILL go to a court claim and very soon.

The company should have responded to the first PCN - what IS the matter with them, this is and was perfectly simple! The PCN gave them a tear-off slip or box on the back, to give the name & address of the hirer, or driver if they knew who that was.

Companies with Fleet Vehicles need to wise up and have a policy on these things.

It's their negligence that has caused them to come this close to court and they need to learn. So, they have very little time and can only name the driver before court action commences - so they need to write to Gladstones AND to the parking firm, giving YOUR name and address (ideally I'd have said your wife's name, as she has a better defence as a lessee/hirer who wasn't driving...but NOT if she's only going to fold and pay and can't stand the thought of a court hearing at your local court!).

If you are the robust one, and are willing to defend this as driver, get the company to name YOU and give your full & correct address for service of paperwork (get your wife to check the address and the spelling of your name on the letter, or type it herself - you can't have a typo in the address or you could miss the claim form) and they should add:

We confirm that {company name} is the vehicle's owner, but since it is a company fleet vehicle, we are not the 'keeper' for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"),

This letter acts as our compliance with that Act. Given that we have duly provided you with the name and address of the driver above, we have transferred any liability for parking charges before court action began. This is as set out in statute and is not subject to any initial 'appeal' deadline of 28 days that UKCPM might have imagined exists.

Liability has de facto passed to the driver and we have kept proof of posting this letter.

You must now take the matter up with the driver. We can confirm that he is aware of this matter and we have passed the recent paperwork to him, although you will of course need to send him a PAP-compliant Letter of Claim if you intend to pursue the driver.

You must also erase our company data under the GDPR and DPA 2018 and are hereby barred by the POFA from pursuing {company name} at all.

If we are required to respond again, you are hereby fairly warned that this will no longer be a free service and from this date forward we will formally invoice UKCPM for our time and trouble at £50 per letter, and will enforce such sum(s) that remain unpaid, with our cause of action being based upon your tacit agreement of this term by your conduct, if UKCPM or its agents elect to write to {company name} about this matter again.

yours faithfully,

They will of course have to keep proof of posting to Gladstones and UKCPM, but NOT NOT NOT 'signed for'! Nonono!

A free certificate of posting from the PO Counter is needed, then your wife must bring this home to you for safekeeping and putting with the file you need to start, for all this paperwork & future claim & defence.

and is this in any way unwise?

You have little choice.

I would have said name your wife as hirer/lessee because she wasn't driving, as I said, but from what you have told us, she isn't up for this game and you are.

aarkadian

Thanks Coupon-mad.

your wife's name, as she has a better defence as a lessee/hirer who wasn't driving

the file you need to start, for all this paperwork & future claim & defence

Sounds a little scary. I had an idea it was going to be me turning up at court and saying that they didn't get the paperwork right, and then I would win. Is that very naive? What do I have to be ready for?

Coupon-mad

Read the NEWBIES thread post #2, including the link to Bargepole's thread about COURT PROCEDURES.

aarkadian

They will of course have to keep proof of posting to Gladstones and UKCPM, but NOT NOT NOT 'signed for'! Nonono!

Hi Coupon-mad. Just curious about the last bit. Why not ask for a delivery that Gladstones and UKCPM have to sign for?