Tips & advice on court proceedings. UKCPM trying to charge me for parking in my own allocated space

Le_Kirk

The appellant is correct that the purpose of the parking scheme is to deter unauthorised vehicles parking within the restricted area; however, for a permit management scheme to run effectively, it is imperative that residents display their permits at all times as this is the only way our operatives are able to ascertain which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area. 

Not true, they could put all residents on a white list.

The appellant states that the permit had fallen.

If the UKCPM wanted permits to stay on the windscreen they should have provided a decent permit holder! 

Coupon-mad

Reply and reply again, play some email tennis asking for more evidence that you might want to see.

You will lose but so what?!

ukcpm_canSMD

Coupon-mad said:

Reply and reply again, play some email tennis asking for more evidence that you might want to see.

You will lose but so what?!

here is my response:

UKCPM have stated that in order to effectively run a parking scheme they require all residents to display their permits, and that this is the ONLY way they can ascertain which vehicles are authorised. 

I have two arguments to this fictitious statement:

- This is a lie, as many other honest car park management companies that operate on residential land run a whitelist scheme whereby residents can have their number plates/ vehicle models listed as an authorised vehicle. UKCPM have decided not to do this. the option is still there however, so stating that there are no other options is a LIE. I strongly suspect the reasons UKCPM have chosen not to do so is significantly reduce their profit at this location; I have spoken to over 12 residents that have had exactly the same issue over the past few years.

- UKCPM have also stated that they need the permits to be shown to assist them in ascertaining which vehicles are authorised to use the parking spaces. whilst I may have failed in this instance to display my permit , I have since proven to UKCPM that this is indeed my space, and that the vehicle in question was authorised. However they have chosen to ignore this. This lends strong credence to the suggestion that despite stating on their website that they operate to assist residents, they in fact focus their attentions on using residents as the sole source of profit, in a distinctly immoral fashion

Furthermore, I dispute UKCPM's claim that they hold a legal contract to operate on the land- they have thus far refused to provide any evidence of such contract and I strongly believe that it simply does not exist.

I have a contact as per my tenancy which does not state the requirement to display a permit. I have done so merely out of courtesy, but I am not legally require to do so. This is because my tenancy contract entitles me to free use of my allocated parking space, without the impedance of any third party. The tenancy contract is supreme to any and all contract displayed within the carpark.

UKCPM have clearly pursued a ticket/invoice against a resident that they know holds a permit/ against an authorised vehicle. They have continued to do so once confronted with evidence of such authorisation. This shows that their behaviour towards residential parking management is deceptive at best, and operates under the pretence of attempting to assist residents- but all evidence strongly suggests the contrary- That UKCPM have positioned themselves in this residential car park purely to fine and invoice residents for mistakes such as a slipped permit ( such an issue would be avoided by a whitelist system). 

The fact that UKCPM does not appear to have any robust system in place to cancel tickets/ invoices issued to residents that have made an error/ mistake strongly lends further credence to the suggestion that UKCPM's claim to be present on this site is to assist residents is in fact a deception, and that they are operating in a predatory and unfair manner.

I am aware that this appeal service is not as independent as it attempts to appear, and the vast majority of appeals are almost automatically rejected. This presents Gladstones solicitors and the Car park management company with the opportunity to preview the arguments that may be presented if the matter proceeds to Small Claims Court. I'm very happy to present some of my arguments to give them an idea of what they will face but I have kept many to myself for now, as I will enjoy destroying whichever unfortunate appointed solicitor they use in court. 

I would also like to draw attention to the successfully proposed code of conduct and framework that was approved in the houses of parliament , and given royal ascent back in October- proposed by Sir Gregory Knight. 

"Motorists will be able to appeal their fine and see it reduced to a maximum of £20, or cancelled entirely if they have a valid ticket, permit, or blue badge but failed to display it correctly"

Whilst IAS may or may not choose to heed the above evidence on the governments clear stance on this exact issue, I would be very interested to see a judges application of this in court. 

I also relish the idea that this would most likely severely damage UKCPM's profits on private land once the supporting framework is enforced. 

ukcpm_canSMD

Le_Kirk said:

The appellant is correct that the purpose of the parking scheme is to deter unauthorised vehicles parking within the restricted area; however, for a permit management scheme to run effectively, it is imperative that residents display their permits at all times as this is the only way our operatives are able to ascertain which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area. 

Not true, they could put all residents on a white list.

The appellant states that the permit had fallen.

If the UKCPM wanted permits to stay on the windscreen they should have provided a decent permit holder! 

I used your point in my argument, thankyou for your help.

Coupon-mad

Remove the multiple use of the word 'lie'.  You cannot say that and expect a Judge to be on your side later.  Tone it down, think what words you'd use instead if at a court hearing.

Also remove this entire phrase!

"whilst I may have failed in this instance to display my permit'.

BiscuitMuncher

I used the excellent advice and information from the regulars on this forum in 2015 after receiving 5 PCNs for parking in my allocated parking space. I was also a tenant. 

Do not rely on help from letting agents, management companies ,MPs or landlords.
Also, don’t try and be “clever” in your appeals, stick to the facts.

Le_Kirk

I have a contact contract as per my tenancy which does not state the requirement to display a permit.

Maybe small change above.

1505grandad

"......without the impedance of any third party......"

Should this be interference?

ukcpm_canSMD

Thankyou all, Ill be making these changes tomorrow prior to sending! I really appreciate the help!

ukcpm_canSMD

IAS Response:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without clearly displaying a valid permit in the windscreen, will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they had just moved in, as demonstrated by the tenancy agreement and had a right to park in their allocated bay. I have seen the document confirming their is a bay allocated to their property, but I can see no right to park in the tenancy agreement.

The landowner has requested a permit scheme. The reason for this matter not. Those are the rules. If the driver could not display a permit, or obtain temporary permission to park without a permit, they must park elsewhere. Otherwise they agree to pay the charge.

The Operator's relationship or lack of relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the Appellant's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator. he Operator has provided landowner authority to me. The Appellant is not obliged to appeal to the IAS.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. The appeal is dismissed.