CPMS

Tysernans2018

Umkomaas said:

I have now investigated this matter with Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd who have confirmed that, due to human error, the original penalty charge notice sent to you showed the incorrect date of event. They have confirmed that a further penalty charge notice was issued to you following this with the correct date of event. 

Are the DVLA serious?  Go back to them and ask them to confirm that CPMS have stated they have issued two penalty charge notices. I wouldn't highlight 'penalty', just ask them to confirm. 

And if they do confirm? Which they will 

Tysernans2018

Fruitcake said:

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

Wouldn't I be better trying to get the 1st one cancelled as an error and appealing the 2nd which was too late for keeper liability? Looks like the IAS will reject my appeal as most are saying as they always do, then I've run out of time to appeal the 2nd. The DVLA seem to think the first was replaced with the 2nd after reading their response, am I right in assuming this? 

Tysernans2018

** This is the clause in the tenancy agreement regarding parking **


24. Car Parking (if relevant)  24.1. To park private vehicle(s) only at the Premises.  24.2. To park in the car parking space, garage, or drive way allocated to the Premises, if applicable.  24.3. To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.  24.4. To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.  24.5. Not to park any vehicle at the Premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed. 

Umkomaas

Tysernans2018 said:

Umkomaas said:

I have now investigated this matter with Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd who have confirmed that, due to human error, the original penalty charge notice sent to you showed the incorrect date of event. They have confirmed that a further penalty charge notice was issued to you following this with the correct date of event. 

Are the DVLA serious?  Go back to them and ask them to confirm that CPMS have stated they have issued two penalty charge notices. I wouldn't highlight 'penalty', just ask them to confirm. 

And if they do confirm? Which they will 

No private organisation can issue a 'penalty'. If you have confirmation from both the DVLA and the PPC that they have issued 'penalties', you're in a very strong position. 

Fruitcake

Tysernans2018 said:

Fruitcake said:

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

Wouldn't I be better trying to get the 1st one cancelled as an error and appealing the 2nd which was too late for keeper liability? Looks like the IAS will reject my appeal as most are saying as they always do, then I've run out of time to appeal the 2nd. The DVLA seem to think the first was replaced with the 2nd after reading their response, am I right in assuming this? 

Don't think of it as two PCNs. You have one PCN number, therefore you have one PCN to deal with. 

The IAS may well reject your appeal. They may fold and cancel. I can guarantee it won't be cancelled if you don't appeal. Remember, you have proof that the NTK was issued incorrectly.

The DVLA are clueless. They don't want their income stream cut off, but nothing will ever change unless people keep complaining to them and about them to their MPs and the ICO. 

Fruitcake

Tysernans2018 said:

** This is the clause in the tenancy agreement regarding parking **


24. Car Parking (if relevant)  24.1. To park private vehicle(s) only at the Premises.  24.2. To park in the car parking space, garage, or drive way allocated to the Premises, if applicable.  24.3. To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.  24.4. To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.  24.5. Not to park any vehicle at the Premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed. 

As expected, there is no mention of a permit scheme, or a PPC, or PCNs, or paying PPCs, or court, or what will happen if you breach the parking conditions in your tenancy agreement.
You do not have a contract with your landlord or landowner that requires you to pay an unregulated private parking company if you breach your tenancy agreement.

Is there anything in your tenancy agreement about your rights to quiet enjoyment? 

The PPC have no right to demand monies from you. You should therefore complain to whoever employed the PPC and keep complaining. Get other residents to complain as well if they have received PCNs.

Tysernans2018

Fruitcake said:

Tysernans2018 said:

** This is the clause in the tenancy agreement regarding parking **


24. Car Parking (if relevant)  24.1. To park private vehicle(s) only at the Premises.  24.2. To park in the car parking space, garage, or drive way allocated to the Premises, if applicable.  24.3. To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.  24.4. To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.  24.5. Not to park any vehicle at the Premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed. 

As expected, there is no mention of a permit scheme, or a PPC, or PCNs, or paying PPCs, or court, or what will happen if you breach the parking conditions in your tenancy agreement.
You do not have a contract with your landlord or landowner that requires you to pay an unregulated private parking company if you breach your tenancy agreement.

Is there anything in your tenancy agreement about your rights to quiet enjoyment? 

The PPC have no right to demand monies from you. You should therefore complain to whoever employed the PPC and keep complaining. Get other residents to complain as well if they have received PCNs.

32. Quiet Enjoyment   32.1. To allow the Tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the Premises during the Tenancy without any unlawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under, through or in trust for the Landlord. 

**Unfortunately plenty of signs in the parking area**

Fruitcake

A company with whom you have no contract demanding money from you is in my opinion an unlawful interruption of your quiet enjoyment, and therefore a breach of your tenancy agreement.
You should be complaining to whoever employed them about this breach.

Tysernans2018

Fruitcake said:

Tysernans2018 said:

Fruitcake said:

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

Wouldn't I be better trying to get the 1st one cancelled as an error and appealing the 2nd which was too late for keeper liability? Looks like the IAS will reject my appeal as most are saying as they always do, then I've run out of time to appeal the 2nd. The DVLA seem to think the first was replaced with the 2nd after reading their response, am I right in assuming this? 

Don't think of it as two PCNs. You have one PCN number, therefore you have one PCN to deal with. 

The IAS may well reject your appeal. They may fold and cancel. I can guarantee it won't be cancelled if you don't appeal. Remember, you have proof that the NTK was issued incorrectly.

The DVLA are clueless. They don't want their income stream cut off, but nothing will ever change unless people keep complaining to them and about them to their MPs and the ICO. 

Ok, I'll appeal to IAS tomorrow ref the 1st PCN, if they reject I'm assuming it'll go to court, how would a judge view it? I know you don't know for sure but with extra costs would I be successful at court based on PCN 1? 

Umkomaas

Tysernans2018 said:

Fruitcake said:

Tysernans2018 said:

Fruitcake said:

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

Wouldn't I be better trying to get the 1st one cancelled as an error and appealing the 2nd which was too late for keeper liability? Looks like the IAS will reject my appeal as most are saying as they always do, then I've run out of time to appeal the 2nd. The DVLA seem to think the first was replaced with the 2nd after reading their response, am I right in assuming this? 

Don't think of it as two PCNs. You have one PCN number, therefore you have one PCN to deal with. 

The IAS may well reject your appeal. They may fold and cancel. I can guarantee it won't be cancelled if you don't appeal. Remember, you have proof that the NTK was issued incorrectly.

The DVLA are clueless. They don't want their income stream cut off, but nothing will ever change unless people keep complaining to them and about them to their MPs and the ICO. 

Ok, I'll appeal to IAS tomorrow ref the 1st PCN, if they reject I'm assuming it'll go to court, how would a judge view it? I know you don't know for sure but with extra costs would I be successful at court based on PCN 1? 

If you can wheedle out confirmation that they have issued you with a penalty, should it get to court, that will play heavily in your favour. 

That said, CPMS are not in the Premier Div of litigious PPCs, and with the admin mess they've already made of this, I can't see them doing somersaults in rushing to put your case in front of a Judge. Keep playing the long game.