Parking Charge Notice from CPM (now asking me to resubmit appeal)

PetatasBravas

Hi all,

My wife got this Parking Charge Notice from CPM: 


I sent in the below appeal using the template from the sticky, and included a few extra points (I know people say not to change the template, but this was successful recently with a different appeal so thought it'd be worth a try):


APPEAL

To whom it may concern,

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this parking charge from UK Car Park Management (CPM). The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. Insufficient and illegible signage
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority

1) Insufficient and illegible signage

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis Nov 2015. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. CPM has failed to include a clear and close up photo of signage to evidence legibility. 

In addition, the parking charge involves an allegation of “unauthorised parking”, however no evidence has been provided of the parking agreement agreed by the landowner.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice. 

I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2) No evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer', ‘genuine business user’ or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

• 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
• 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
• a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
• b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
• c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
• d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
• e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I therefore put CPM to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Collection Services and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

I request that my appeal is allowed.

APPEAL END




I've now had this email asking me to resubmit the email, but I'm worried that the line in bold is their clever way of trying to get me to accept liability by resubmitting it:




EMAIL FROM CPM

Date of this Notice: 11/05/2023

Date of Parking Event: 18/03/2023

 

Total Amount Due: £100.00 

Dear X,

We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence. 

If you were not the driver of the vehicle you should notify us of the drivers name and current address and pass the notice to the driver within 28 days from the notice; you can do this via  

[link removed as I can't post links]

If you wish to appeal as the registered keeper and accept liability, please resubmit an appeal in writing or via [link removed as I can't post links]

IMPORTANT NOTE: If we have not been made aware of the name and a current address for service of the driver, from 1 October 2012 under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the unpaid amount from the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked. 

Kind Regards, 

Appeals Department

UK Car Park Management Ltd

EMAIL FROM CPM END




Does anyone know if it's safe to resubmit the appeal? 

Or whether I should just ignore the email since I won't be adding anything new to the appeal?

I've tried looking through the other posts but can't seem to find one where there's an answer to this. 

Fruitcake

Plan A is always for the keeper to complain to the landowner and their MP.

The template in blue text is recommended for good reasons.

Your additions make no sense because CPM are not BPA members, do not offer PoPLA, and I have no idea why you have mentioned Parking Collection Services in your appeal.

The NTK is not PoFA complaint because it was given too late for the keeper to be liable so all that was needed was the template in blue text plus a one liner stating this.

You could try appealing again, using the template plus non-PoFA compliant NTK and stating that the keeper was not the driver, but it may well be rejected. 

The important thing is not to reveal the driver's identity in any correspondence.

KeithP

PetatasBravas said:

My wife got this Parking Charge Notice...

I sent in the below appeal...

The first thing to say is...
If your wife got the PCN, and you responded, whose name did you use when appealing?

Secondly, ignore that letter. They are just fishing for the driver's details which you are not going to give them.

You mentioned the BPA Code of Practice several times in that appeal and quoted large chunks from it.
Why?
UK Car Park Management Ltd are not members of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme.
As it says on that PCN you have shown us...

Coupon-mad

That appeal also asks for a POPLA Code which is BPA firms only.  Who sent the appeal, you are registered keeper, in your name?

PetatasBravas

Thanks all. 

It's a car that's leased by me, so I appealed under my name without saying who the driver was. 

Coupon-mad

But you said your wife got the PCN?

Didn't the lease firm get the first PCN?

PetatasBravas

Haha, sorry I should have said my wife was the reason for the PCN!

The PCN itself went to the lease company first before they sent it on to me.  

Coupon-mad

No, the scam parking industry was the reason for the PCN!

No blame falls in your wife of course. I'm a female driver myself (never get private PCNs these days but did get one in the past).

You can feasibly try to win and kill this at IAS if you appealed as lessee and were not driving.

Here's the outcome of an IAS appeal won by a contact last week in the same situation:


-------------------------------------

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN. 

Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Issued On: xx/04/2023
Issued By: xxxxxxxxx

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator is pursing the Appellant under POFA as the Hirer of the vehicle. 

In accordance with 14(1)If—

(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

The documents mentioned in 13(2) are: 

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

The Operator has not supplied any evidence of the above mentioned documents at (b) and (c) or that they were correctly served on the Hirer. 

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service