Parking Charge Notice - UK Car Park Management (UK CPM) - double yellows private road.

665321

Update - 11/02/2021 - Letter before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors received almost a year after the event. Post on Page 3.

Evening all,
The Registered Keeper (RK) received a "Parking Charge Notice" delivered through the mail.

The issuer of this speculative invoice is UK Car Park Management (UK CPM).  No interaction was had at the time of the alleged contravention, the first the RK knew of this was receiving the letter below.  UK CPM had requested the details of the RK from the DVLA.

The driver was waiting in the car, on double yellow lines, engine running (apologies to climate champions), to pick someone up.
Total time waiting approx 5 minutes.

This was in the evening with very light traffic (appreciate this is no mitigation whatsoever, but rather a poor attempt to avoid coming across as a selfish sod...)

RK has spent some time researching on this board before signing up, it seems UK CPM are rather litigious, however is interested in the thoughts of those more experienced with such matters.

RK has since checked with the council and discovered this is a private road.

Photo of the sign in daylight

Is RK bang to rights, or do the learned folk on here suspect they could squirm their way out of it if played correctly?

Many thanks in advance.

KeithP

That sentence on the sign that you have shown us tells me that is a prohibitive sign.

In other words, any driver cannot possibly enter into a contract to park there. It therefore follows that as there can be no contract to park, there can be no possibility of any breach of contract.

As you say this incident took place a night, you need to also take a picture of that sign at night. 

Redx

also , if UKCPM failed POFA then the keeper has no liability for what a driver does anyway

as mentioned above, no offer to park = no consideration = no acceptance = no contract,

 so its a forbidding sign and the driver did not contract with UKCPM anyway

665321

Appreciate the speedy response.
"In other words, any driver cannot possibly enter into a contract to park there. It therefore follows that as there can be no contract to park, there can be no possibility of any breach of contract."
Nice - that reads very well.
This is the illegible image they included in their invoice taken at night, however the sign is illuminated.  Will get a proper photo as well as you request.


Read elsewhere that someone likened double yellow lines on a private road to having the same status in law as graffiti - which is amusing, and hopefully still the case - as the threads RK has researched are often from 7+ years ago.

1505grandad

"The (driver) was waiting in (the) car, ..............."  -  is this what you meant to post?. Amend accordingly.

665321

Redx said:

also , if UKCPM failed POFA then the keeper has no liability for what a driver does anyway

as mentioned above, no offer to park = no consideration = no acceptance = no contract,

 so its a forbidding sign and the driver did not contract with UKCPM anyway

Cheers for the reply.  have been reading POFA on legislation dot gov
you say "if UKCPM failed POFA" - RK is trying to work out how they would have failed.  Is it because UKCPM do not meet the criteria of a Traffic authority 3(2) or because the driver's parking was not subject to statutory control.  Or quite possibly am way off the ball here.

If this was to go to court (appreciate that is far into the future if at all) then regarding "no liability for what a driver does anyway" can the RK not be compelled to state who the driver was? 

Coupon-mad

Different company, same sign fault = no contract then:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

BTW regulars might be interested to look further into this; on Companies House 'officers' and 'persons with significant control' pages, it seems UKCPM are now owned/controlled by the same company as Premier Park.  

Time to bring them both down & out of the equation then.

665321

Coupon-mad said:

Different company, same sign fault = no contract then:

BTW regulars might be interested to look further into this; on Companies House 'officers' and 'persons with significant control' pages, it seems UKCPM are now owned/controlled by the same company as Premier Park.  

Time to bring them both down & out of the equation then.

Interesting article, cheers.  All these cases involving residents getting done over (or not in this case) by private parking companies are outrageous.  Far more so than this RK's situation..
That blog also mentions "forbidding signs" as does redx.  A very interesting aspect RK was clueless about before this incident.
I have been given the following letter template to send - it certainly reads well to a layperson so this will be sent to them - is there any benefit to waiting nearer the end of the 28 day period?

Dear Sirs,
I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx
You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc

Redx

its less than 21 days for IPC members, if responding to a windscreen ticket

there are parts of POFA that specify timescales , wording , warnings and suchlike , a typical Parking Eye notcie will comply with POFA, whereas many parking companies have filed to follow POFA 2012, even after nearly 8 YEARS (or the CRA 2015 either)

nothing to do with parking legislation or official authorities or traffic laws

the newbies thread explains how to check for POFA compliance, if and when an NTK arrives , which it has here , so NO , no reason to delay appealing until near the end at all , just realise it will likely be rejected anyway , regardless. there is no profit in accepting an appeal

this is what to expect from them , even though its slightly different

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6105583/discontinuance-update-ws-draft#latest

Coupon-mad

The letter won't hurt, but it won't stop them and the rk needs to know NOT to try IAS stage. 

Only a landowner complaint, or winning in court, stops them.

D_P_Dance

Also,  have you read this?

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

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.