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

665321

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Yes appreciate that the letter won't stop them, thanks for advising about not needing to go to IAS.
My initial preference had been to ignore completely, but the advice on the various forums suggest this is not a good idea.
thanks

Redx

The correct stages are

Stage 1 , a landowner or retailer or managing agent complaint , starts a paper trail

Stage 2 , an appeal to the PPC , to show that you tried , plus more paper trail

Stage 3 , an IAS appeal , very rare that we would advise this stage, only in special circumstances

Stage 4 , court

665321

Redx said:

The correct stages are
Stage 1 , a landowner or retailer or managing agent complaint , starts a paper trail
Stage 2 , an appeal to the PPC , to show that you tried , plus more paper trail

Stage 3 , an IAS appeal , very rare that we would advise this stage, only in special circumstances
Stage 4 , court

Interesting, so you wouldn't at this stage respond to UK CPM?
RK or driver is not a resident of the area of a customer of the shops/restaurants in the area (on that date at least) - the land owner who hired UK CPM would probably be pleased non revenue generators are being "punished" for parking there.

Redx

My comments were a general overview of the correct stages due to your previous comments , nothing to do with advising you about your actual case , just general simple clear advice on the correct process for IPC members

It was not advice on what you yourself should do or not do , it was general advice for every IPC case

Not every reply is about your case , but your comments may generate reply comments

665321

What do others think of this as a 1st reply to them?  Thank you KeithP for your phrasing of the forbidden nature of the signage.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

The sign referenced in the letter is prohibitive in nature due to the inclusion of the statement "NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANY TIME".  As a result a driver cannot enter in a contract with UK CPM to park there.  It therefore follows that as there is no contract to park, there can not be any breach of contract as stated in your Parking Charge Notice.

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

RK

Basically if this goes to court, and I am willing to go to court on this (primarily because I understand they can't do me for THAT much more than the initial invoice amount and assuming that I am not legally in the wrong) ,
I'm keen for any correspondence to not sabotage me later on.

Really appreciate the good work you all do here, you've probably deprived these parking cartels of hundreds of thousands of pounds of "income" 

Coupon-mad

Yes do the above, nicely worded.

665321

Just thought I'd update the thread with the expected appeal rejection, just as a means of documenting this "journey" from start to finish.
As per the Newbies thread recommendation I shan't appeal at the IAS Kangaroo Court.
Now I guess we wait for the Letter Before claim.  I'd have thought Covid-19 would have hampered proceedings but clearly UKCPM regard themselves as "essential"...

D_P_Dance

IMO their signs would note ge past a judge, far too much to read, print too small.  ParkingEys have lost cases recently due to their war and peace length signs, read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

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 has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

BarkingDog

Hello, I would advise anyone who receives a PCN to immediately respond, without prejudicing their rights, obligations or other lawful advice etc, by making a Subject Access Request (SAR) under Article 15 GDPR and request any information they are entitled to under Art 14 GDPR (this relates to data not supplied by the data subject). The chances are, regardless of how successful the party pursuing you for parking charges may be, they will have breached GDPR in some way. You have the right to sue for compensation for any breach of GDPR. In my case I received a speculative PCN from a company in respect of a car I own, which was not actually parked (it was moving) and I was not the driver. They failed to respond to my SAR within the required 1 month (strike 1). They claimed office/process/staff changes caused my SAR to be overlooked (strike 2, because Art 5 GDPR requires technical & organisation measures to be in place to prevent loss of data, unlawful processing etc). They continued to process my personal data, despite me informating them it was inaccurate (i.e. I was not the driver) when I made my SAR, in a way that was unlawful and detrimental (strike 3). When I did eventually obtain my SAR data it seems they only have a photograph, supplied by an as yet unidentified source, of my car as it was being driven some 13 minutes prior to the time they claim a parking charge became payable and no evidence to corroborate the false claim made in the PCN (strike 4). I suspect they have also committed an offence under Section 1 Malicious Communications Act 1988 and possibly a breach of Section 2 Fraud Act 2006. My PCN was immediately cancelled on receipt of my follow-up email chasing my SAR, pointing out the breaches of GDPR and informing the company I intended to sue them. I am currently suing them for £750 plus any costs & expenses. I could probably sue for more however I based my claim on the award given in Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd. I will let you know more but the company in question is now not responding to my communications - I require data rectification and notification under Articles 16 & 19 GDPR and I have told them I will sue again for additional amounts if they do not comply. It is all very interesting.

Umkomaas

Keep us posted, but it might be better in a stand-alone thread - suitably titled, as your action now, while rooted in a parking charge, goes well beyond that. We'd all be interested in a court outcome, after which you might share details on the PPC you are suing. Well done on proactively giving them a taste of their own medicine.