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

Fruitcake

DRP are powerless and can safely be ignored. Never, ever 'phone them or a PPC unless you are recording the call, and at least one party has said, this call may be recorded for X purposes

As for the van, this is a known trick where a PPC operative parks a vehicle in someone's space, forcing the resident to park elsewhere. The PPC hope the motorist will park in another space so it can then be ticketed.
It's a shame you didn't get a phot or note the VRM. As landowner/landholder you can get the vehicle keeper's details from the DVLA using a paper request form.
It would be so useful to know who the vehicle was registered to. If it was the PPC, then complaints must fly. Even if it is not, there is still nothing stopping you from issuing a claim for trespass against the vehicle keeper.

Grizebeck

Your over thinking this regarding the "sighting"

ukcpm_canSMD

Fruitcake said:

DRP are powerless and can safely be ignored. Never, ever 'phone them or a PPC unless you are recording the call, and at least one party has said, this call may be recorded for X purposes

As for the van, this is a known trick where a PPC operative parks a vehicle in someone's space, forcing the resident to park elsewhere. The PPC hope the motorist will park in another space so it can then be ticketed.
It's a shame you didn't get a phot or note the VRM. As landowner/landholder you can get the vehicle keeper's details from the DVLA using a paper request form.
It would be so useful to know who the vehicle was registered to. If it was the PPC, then complaints must fly. Even if it is not, there is still nothing stopping you from issuing a claim for trespass against the vehicle keeper.

I did in fact get the van's number plate, and a photograph. I'm a tenant so would have to explain the entire issue to my landlord... 

Fruitcake

Okay then, since you are the lawful landholder of the parking space, you can apply to the DVLA using a paper form to find out the details of the registered keeper. There are various options you can select when requesting keeper details including,

• tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle
• tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land

Request information about a vehicle or its registered keeper from DVLA - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

It will be interesting to see if comes back to a private individual or a company. 

ukcpm_canSMD

OK so finally, a year almost since DRP decided to contact me, I have now finally been issued a Letter Before claim.

They have decided to include both "tickets" in this letter from Gladstones, which is at least an improvement as previously I was getting duplicate letters.

The wording of said letter is quite amusing, so I thought I would share some excerpts with you:

"to recover unpaid parking charge notices" as far as im aware its not an actual PCN and they are supposed to be forbidden from using this pseudo language.

"the amount/due debt includes £70 claimed by our client for the time/ resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice"

they have also included the url to their website, should I wish to "dispute" this, requesting me to create a login.
I'm assuming that I ignore this part and wait for a court date?

KeithP

ukcpm_canSMD said:

"to recover unpaid parking charge notices" as far as im aware its not an actual PCN and they are supposed to be forbidden from using this pseudo language.

Nothing wrong with that.
It's the term Penalty Charge Notice that they cannot use.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

robust LBC Gladstones

to find a recent robust response or two.

ukcpm_canSMD

okay @Coupon-mad I have done as you advised, and I found a quite nicely worded one, that I have altered slightly for my own case
(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79838635#Comment_79838635) being the robust reply that I found. 

The adjusted version that I was considering using is as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re meritless PCN refs xxxxxx

The above parking charge is disputed.  The car was properly parked, your signage was also poorly viable at night, which is when the car was parked due to the light above the only sign visible from said parking space being not in working order for over a year. I dispute that there was a breach of contract, due to the fact that I have an existing an up-to-date tenancy agreement that has been signed by both myself & the landowner that indicates the use of my allocated parking space, and also has no reference at all to the need for a parkingpermit to be displayed. The tenancy agreement provides me with the right to freely enjoy the parking space that I pay for. No other contract that you have attempted to engage me in supercededs this. My tenancy agreement therefore has primacy of contract.

The car was not parked on a roadway, yellow line, paved, hatched or landscaped area, but was parked in none other than parking bay 90- the parking bay allowed to me for free use by the landownder.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) says at  S.69. (1):

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.

Also, given there was a 'patrol' (so says the later postal notice) why was no PCN issued to the windscreen?  The new incoming Statutory Code of Practice requires windscreen PCNs to be served on the spot where possible, in order to comply with the CRA 2015 in giving immediate notice to the driver and to avoid harvesting DVLA keeper data unnecessarily.   Why are UKCPM totally ignoring the DLUHC Code, which has been published for a year and is only stalled for two matters (money related) with all other clauses remaining untouched?

I guess ex-clampers like UKCPM assume the (incoming) law doesn't apply to you, or can be ignored for now because the parking industry threw money at Judicial Reviews, allowing firms like you to kick the can down the road for a few years longer.

In addition to the above, I would also like to point out that UKCPM does not employ any robust system to protect residents that have the right to freely enjoy their own legitimate parking space. UKCPM in this instance has obtained a contract to manage the parking on this land supposedly assist residents by preventing/ discouraging people who do NOT have a right to freely park here. however, instead they are actively persuing residents that do indeed have a right to park in their spaces. If UKCPM had a genuine interest to protect the rights of the residents to their parking space, they would have a robust system to prevent them from accidentally penalising residents for using their own spaces. They dont have any system in place, which suggests that these in fact are the very people (residents) whom they wish to profit from. To "manage" these car parks under the guise of doing so to assist the residents that they are in fact targeting, is dishonest and a gross misrepresentation.

It is worth noting that the new incoming Statutory Code of Practice specifically mentions an example such as this; "n considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:d) where a permit to park has not been displayed but the driver subsequently supplies a copy of the permit they hold that would have been valid at the time identified in the notice of parking charge; I in fact possess one of these, which I display out of courtesy and to make my life simpler. I have several times informed UKCPM that I possess, and possessed a permit, but they have ignored this.

If UKCPM think they have a cause of action, then go straight to court stage (LBC) because the IAS is considered by MPs and right-thinking people to be a farce of an 'appeals service' and as useful to consumers as a chocolate teapot.  The IAS and POPLA are considered self-serving and are being replaced. There is no appeal - it is all futile.  We all know that.

Do not send debt demands.  Do not string the matter out for months.  Do not add the extortionate £70 that the DLUHC intends to ban.  See you in court, or cancel this meritless charge immediately.

yours faithfully,

your name

Coupon-mad

If that's a reply to a solicitor, you can't say 'your signage', or "I guess ex-clampers like UKCPM assume the (incoming) law doesn't apply to you,"

This bit makes little sense if you are already at LBC stage:

"If UKCPM think they have a cause of action, then go straight to court stage (LBC) because the IAS is considered by MPs and right-thinking people to be a farce of an 'appeals service' and as useful to consumers as a chocolate teapot.  The IAS and POPLA are considered self-serving and are being replaced. There is no appeal - it is all futile.  We all know that."

Le_Kirk

ukcpm_canSMD said:

The above parking charge is disputed.  The car was properly parked, your signage was also poorly viable barely visible at night, which is when the car was parked, due to the light above the only sign visible from said parking space being not in not being in working order for over a year. I dispute that there was a breach of contract, due to the fact that I have an existing an up-to-date tenancy agreement that has been signed by both myself & the landowner that indicates the use of my allocated parking space, and also has no reference at all to the need for a parking permit to be displayed. The tenancy agreement provides me with the right to freely enjoy the parking space that I pay for. No other contract that you have attempted to engage me in supercededs supersedes this. My tenancy agreement therefore has primacy of contract.

Just a few pointers above, check the rest of it for grammatical, formatting and spelling errors.