CPM Parking Charge Notice on L&Q Housing Association Estate

CPM_must_go

Thanks for the responses.

Fruitcake said:

"The definition of the verb “to park” is “to place or leave a vehicle in a certain location for a period of time”. By this definition the vehicle was parked, and it must be a matter of fact, not degree."

I believe this may have been taken from Jopson vs Homeguard. 

You could double check and respond with the whole text the judge used in that case where he said loading/unloading or dealing with a small vicissitude is not parking. 


Complaining to local and national press is a good thing as long as it is reported sensibly. No using the F word, but including the fact that MPs across all parties have called this a scam.

I have the Jopson v Homeguard document in front of me, which can be downloaded from:

parkingcowboys DOT co DOT uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf

I can't find that exact phrasing CPM have used within it, the closest I can see is 21:

21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while
unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a
frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this
was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not
be “parked”.

Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant
delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed
the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach
would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration

which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite
satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary
for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever
precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.
Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge
stipulated in the respondent’s notice.

How to I go about contacting UKCPM again? Submit another appeal? Their response came from a no reply email address. Send them an email? I can only find general ones that will presumably be ignored.

Coupon-mad

CPM_must_go said:

So, following the advice in the Newbies thread, upon receipt of a Formal Demand from UKCPM (which is the first written correspondence with me that I therefore take to be the NTK) by post, I lodged an appeal via the UKCPM appeals online portal as Vehicle Keeper, worded as per the Newbies template. I added a final sentence that per Jopson v Homeguard, the childminder (and by extension anyone dropping off or picking up a child) are protected by law.

Here is the response I received by email this morning:

------------------------------------------------------------

21st February 2020

Dear Mr REDACTED

[Their photos of the vehicle and the signage are here]

Thank you for your appeal against the above PCN.

We have carefully considered your appeal but on this occasion, I am writing to inform you that
your appeal has been unsuccessful as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking
occurred. The decision has been made on the basis that:

A valid permit was not clearly displayed in the vehicle windscreen.

The photographic evidence of your vehicle supports the above statement.

Signage clearly states “A VALID UK CPM PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN THE
FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES”.

In order for a vehicle to be parked correctly a valid CPM parking permit must be clearly
displayed within the vehicle windscreen at all times. The photographic evidence of your vehicle
shows that at the time of the contravention a valid CPM parking permit was not displayed,
therefore you had breached parking restrictions within the area and were subsequently issued
with a parking charge notice.

It is the driver’s responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and
check parking is permitted. There is clear signage placed throughout the parking areas stating
that the land is private property and restrictions apply.

The definition of the verb “to park” is “to place or leave a vehicle in a certain location for a period of time”. By this definition the vehicle was parked, and it must be a matter of fact, not degree.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If we have not been made aware of the name and a current address for
service of the driver, from 1 October 2012 under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, we do have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the unpaid
amount from the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked.

A Consideration Period is not a ‘free parking period’ where the restrictions do not apply. In
fact, a Consideration Period is intended for one to be able to comply with the terms. As per the
IPC Code of Practice, a “sufficient” Consideration Period should be applied for the driver to
read and consider the terms. However, if there is no evidence of the driver reading the signs or
making any attempt to do so, the length of stay is irrelevant, and the issue of a Consideration
Period is not particularly pertinent.

Please note. All photographic evidence that was taken at the time of the contravention can be
viewed in full on www.paymyticket.co.uk.

Please note: Your appeal was submitted outside of the 14-day discounted period, therefore
you are liable to pay the full fee of £100. You now have 28 days from the date of this letter to
make payment.  

(I cut out some blurb about paying and the IAS as neither are a sane option!).

If payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this letter then additional charges may
be incurred, for which you may be liable. The matter maybe referred for litigation in the County
Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you. This may
impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future.

If you appeal and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined,
then the appeal will be cancelled and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the
charge.

Yours sincerely

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, what now? Do I go to the IAS as the letter states? **EDIT** - Just reread the NEWBIES thread and I see it's a kangaroo court and is pointless. So I won't bother.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have reminded both MPs several times that at this stage, the only useful point of contact for them is directly with both L&Q and UKCPM as they are the only ones able to quash this ridiculous ticket.

Any thoughts and suggestions welcome, as I feel like I'm rapidly heading to a court date and debt collection agencies as it stands.

I'm also seriously considering approaching both local and national media (both press and TV) - is it a bad idea?

How to I go about contacting UKCPM again? Submit another appeal? Their response came from a no reply email address. Send them an email?

Why do you want to contact the useless parking firm again, knowing there is NO APPEAL with IPC firms?

Why did you contact the Council, this is not their business.

Like everyone else here, as we are so busy and need to spend time o  people's court defences (which is how we see 99% of people win) please spare us replying at a 'nothing' stage and we will see you when you get a court claim (not debt demand letters, please...no posts about them).

If I were you I would be publicising it in the papers (YES - DO THAT!!) and bookmarking the other UKCPM threads about Jack Chapman's signature and the SRA complaint about Gladstones, as those threads are all ahead of you in this game.    

No links given - search the forum.  You will learn loads and you will see most of them are being discontinued at the mo!

CPM_must_go

Coupon-mad said:

Why do you want to contact the useless parking firm again, knowing there is NO APPEAL with IPC firms?

This was a response to the previous post from @Fruitcake:

Fruitcake said:

"The definition of the verb “to park” is “to place or leave a vehicle in a certain location for a period of time”. By this definition the vehicle was parked, and it must be a matter of fact, not degree."

I believe this may have been taken from Jopson vs Homeguard.

You could double check and respond with the whole text the judge used in that case where he said loading/unloading or dealing with a small vicissitude is not parking.

Coupon-mad said:

Why did you contact the Council, this is not their business.

This is not just me, this is the choice that one of the MPs made.

Coupon-mad said:

Like everyone else here, as we are so busy and need to spend time o  people's court defences (which is how we see 99% of people win) please spare us replying at a 'nothing' stage and we will see you when you get a court claim (not debt demand letters, please...no posts about them).

Okay, clear.

Coupon-mad said:

If I were you I would be publicising it in the papers (YES - DO THAT!!) and bookmarking the other UKCPM threads about Jack Chapman's signature and the SRA complaint about Gladstones, as those threads are all ahead of you in this game.    

No links given - search the forum.  You will learn loads and you will see most of them are being discontinued at the mo!

Have done, I have just contacted my local paper and a national - I will update if there is anything of note.

Just a small suggestion - perhaps adding a note about this mysterious Jack Chapman to the Newbies thread may help avoid people like me getting your back up - this is the first time I've had to deal with these scammers, so forgive me if I don't immediately know every single intricate detail of how they operate.

nosferatu1001

Youre not expected to immediately know
You are, however, expected to spend your time reading as many threads as you can. Using the forum search is *essential* for you to get ahead of the game here. 

Fruitcake

I meant, respond to the scammers at the court claim stage.

The dictionary meaning of a word is not the same as a legal meaning. For example, in a dictionary, "him" refers to a male whereas in legal terms it means both male and female.
Likewise, "person" means an individual in a dictionary whereas the legal definition refers to individuals, groups, and businesses.

In para 20 of the Jopson case and para 21 that you have quoted the words used are very, very similar to that in the scammers, but they have missed out the judge's clarification/interpretation.

It is only a minor point and may be of little value, but you will need to rebut each and every point they claim. Showing a judge that there was no previous legal definition of parking until the Jopson case may persuade her/him to accept that your vehicle was not parked.

CPM_must_go

As an update - it appears that this ticket has now been quashed.

I say "appears", because, after six months of constant back and forth with the MP for the constituency where the L&Q estate is located, today I received half of a scanned letter from UKCPM, via the MP (and addressed to same said MP), stating that:

"Mr [REDACTED] received a parking charge notice as his vehicle was observed parking on site without displaying a valid UK CPM permit and whilst I appreciate the comments he has raised within his letter, UK CPM operate under the instruction of our client and these are the restrictions that have been implemented under their request.

Although the PCN has been issued correctly, I have on this occasion decided to rescind the charge as a gesture of good will. However, Mr [REDACTED] must ensure that, going forward, he parks in accordance with the parking restrictions at all times whilst parked on site. Failure to do so may result in further PCN's being issued, which will be upheld."

In short, a total denial that the ticket was incorrectly issued as per Jopson vs Homeguard, and instead a "gesture of good will"

I want to thank all the forumites on here for all the work they are doing and their helpful advice.

I'm not dropping this - I'm pressing for two hard copy letters - one from UKCPM and one from Debt Recovery Plus - directly addressed to me, putting in writing that the matter is now closed as far as they are concerned.

I'm also still taking this to as many media outlets as possible - yes, my individual ticket was quashed on this single occasion, but I'm still not willing to use this childminder for fear of more "PCN" tickets. And as it stands, the MP is doing nothing to address the fact that UKCPM are doing this, and that L&Q are allowing them to do it on their land. Until then, I will keep giving them a hard time, and I will keep my eye on the forum here - hopefully the PCoPA 2019 is passed eventually and they all crawl under their rocks again - until they find another scam that is. I also hope UKCPM specifically get their come-uppance for the "Jack Chapman's signature" fiasco and the SLA throw the book at them.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, it sounds cancelled. Does the portal still show it as owing? 
You should also INSTRUCT them to ERASE your data
They have no reason to retain access to it any furhter, and you have a right to be forgotten that has no override, as they have no reason to retain YOUR personal data. 

Coupon-mad

I'm still not willing to use this childminder for fear of more "PCN" tickets. 

Although the PCN has been issued correctly, I have on this occasion decided to rescind the charge as a gesture of good will. However, Mr [REDACTED] must ensure that, going forward, he parks in accordance with the parking restrictions at all times whilst parked on site. Failure to do so may result in further PCN's being issued, which will be upheld

Your childminder can't let that statement stand or he/she would be held to be now accepting the scheme!

 You and the childminder if they are the resident, need to put it in writing to UKCPM and L&Q that neither you nor any visitors dropping kids to the childminder can ever be bound by some shonky parking enforcement that interferes with the rights of residents and visitors dropping off or collecting children.  And that UKCPM need to be removed immediately and not replaced. 

No ex-clamper thug firm has any place in a residential car park.  Just not needed; they cause residents a private nuisance ,interfere with residents' agreements and rights - and it must stop.