CPM fine when had permit in post ?

Coupon-mad

I can see you ar in the middle of a pointless IAS appeal.  No-one is going to be able to assist you to win at the IAS because it is broken, a kangaroo court, as seen in umpteen cases over the years.  Only 5% of appeals are upheld, for goodness sake, and it's run by the parking sector themselves.

When you lose that pointless IAS appeal, ignore the debt demands and come back if UKCPM sue.

The above is all covered in the NEWBIES thread already, in more depth for each stage.

fisherjim

jamiesouth said:

sorry about the use of fine lol, 
I have spoke to RMG group who own area and they have said they cannot cancel it or get involved so no help atoll,
who do I report this to ? 

But they don't "own it" do they?

Berkeley Homes appointed RMG as Estate and Property Managers for RCY on 29May 2017

https://www.rcmra.co.uk//rcm-property-management-2

If RMG appointed the PPC and messed up the issue of passes of course they can get involved, they also brag about their customer care:

Our approach focuses on the customer and we strive to deliver high quality customer service at all times including access to our 24 hour, 7 days a week Customer Service Team.

https://www.rmguk.com/

https://www.rmguk.com/services/private-sector-services/

Make a formal complaint here:

https://www.rmguk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RMG_Complaints_Procedure_-_May_2019.pdf

Include your complain about their contractor's and their misrepresentation of authority using the term "Penalty Charge Notice" on two letters:

https://0502cecb-b503-4df1-81ef-aee6c4efaff6.filesusr.com/ugd/2e4e9e_95da0a16cf51430e8af65ef38d430448.pdf

https://0502cecb-b503-4df1-81ef-aee6c4efaff6.filesusr.com/ugd/2e4e9e_55f11065817b4278baff2cd62f5e82ad.pdf

Report this to the IPC and demand they are sanctioned you should have included it in the appeal to their scam appeal service at least it might have stirred them up.

While you are sitting around expecting others to do the investigative work for you the clock is ticking for debt collector letters to start coming, (don't come back for help with those you don't need any) and then a court claim get your ducks lined up and make a fuss with these idiots it won't get better on its own.

jamiesouth

ok thank you again for all the info , so I'm still going back and fourth with the pointless IAS appeal, 
so your all saying  i carry on with that,  so i have prove behind me If it goes to UKCPM sueing stage ?
please keep with me hear im bit slow/and dyslexic so need it all spelt out for me haha.

Cheers Jamie  

Johnersh

Tell them to do one. This is Unconscionable. It is not reasonable to tell you not to use your own property when they are retained to enforce/protect your property such that a bay is available for you to park in. This is actually punitive and contrary to the purpose of the parking contract with the landowner. 

Put them on notice that you will claim costs for unreasonable conduct if they litigate in the circumstances. 

The obligation in most of these std contracts is to supply a permit and to operate a scheme. The contract is impossible to perform (doctrine of impossibility) if you've asked for a permit and they've failed to supply it.

Finally, they could have supplied a permit by courier same day for less than they are now seeking to charge you. If they don't do all in their power to make it possible to perform the contract (bearing in mind you are not entitled to apply for a permit until you take possession) they can't very well seek to claim a breach from a lawful user who has done, by contacting the agent etc. This will fail the penalty test, notwithstanding Beavis as this is not a commercial site.

Finally if the ppcs want to know why there is such objection to the way they operate, cases like this are prime examples. 

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?  Does you lease/AST take primacy?

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

g

Half_way

Johnersh said:

Tell them to do one. This is Unconscionable. It is not reasonable to tell you not to use your own property when they are retained to enforce/protect your property such that a bay is available for you to park in. This is actually punitive and contrary to the purpose of the parking contract with the landowner. 

Put them on notice that you will claim costs for unreasonable conduct if they litigate in the circumstances. 

The obligation in most of these std contracts is to supply a permit and to operate a scheme. The contract is impossible to perform (doctrine of impossibility) if you've asked for a permit and they've failed to supply it.

Finally, they could have supplied a permit by courier same day for less than they are now seeking to charge you. If they don't do all in their power to make it possible to perform the contract (bearing in mind you are not entitled to apply for a permit until you take possession) they can't very well seek to claim a breach from a lawful user who has done, by contacting the agent etc. This will fail the penalty test, notwithstanding Beavis as this is not a commercial site.

Finally if the ppcs want to know why there is such objection to the way they operate, cases like this are prime examples. 

Unless I've missed something, the original poster has not said what rights if any they have to park in the space, this is absolutely key, if the car park is for building B and Jamiesouth lives in Building A then that will change things considerably.

again, unless ive missed something the rights to use the space question has been asked repeatedly - and no response has been forthcoming

jamiesouth

Update all ...

The adjudicator made their decision on 21/05/2021 07:16:13.

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

Johnersh

Unless I've missed something, the original poster has not said what rights if any they have to park in the space, this is absolutely key, if the car park is for building B and Jamiesouth lives in Building A then that will change things considerably. 
@Half_way I'd agree with that. I was assuming that I could take that for granted given the o/p implied such an entitlement, but perhaps we shouldn't. As they say in Under Siege 2... Assumption is the mother of all **** ups! 

jamiesouth

I live in a apartment and the parking spaces i parked in when i got the ticket and the parking spaces i park in now with my permit are the same, whole point of this is I didn't have the permit at the time as it was in the post... 

Umkomaas

jamiesouth said:

I live in a apartment and the parking spaces i parked in when i got the ticket and the parking spaces i park in now with my permit are the same, whole point of this is I didn't have the permit at the time as it was in the post... 

UKCPM will almost certainly issue court proceedings, the are the most litigious of all parking firms in the UK. You potentially have a very strong defence - read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post, to acquaint yourself with how to deal with these in readiness. The better prepared you are, the better you will deal with this, and the greater the likelihood of success. 

Please don't come back to the thread in a few weeks time asking 'What do I do now, I've received a Letter Before Claim/court claim?'. Preparation, preparation, preparation.