CPM ANPR PCN - Leaseholder with exclusive use of space

Grizebeck

Just ask to speak directly to Jackson 
But good if you can get your legal costs covered but I have a feeling they may not cover this 

Mullerice

The_Slithy_Tove said:

Could the OP warn CPM and the management company (who are jointly liable) that their behaviour is amounting to harassment under these circumstances? Such a threat may put enough pressure on the management company to act.

Oh the management company are well aware. I’ve shared my thoughts with them, including several of the headline cases such as Davey vs UKPC. CPM are aware from all of the appeals over the years. 

I’m also waiting back on an answer as to why they think that they can authorise CPM to rent out resident spaces to the public for £100 a day at the inconvenience of residents, and why they consider that to be a minor and inconsequential change to the ‘estate regulations’ - not sure I’ll get an answer back 🤷‍♂️ 

there’s also now the issue of visitor access rights. The lease says that our visitors can use any empty bay on a first come first serve basis for up to 24 hours at a time. CPM have kindly let us all have 60x visitor e-permits per year… 

Mullerice

Can someone also explain to me about planning permission requirements for CPM signage? I recall reading something about this but not sure what the deal is nor how to check if they’re compliant 

would it be reasonable to remove the signage if there isn’t planning permission in place and it is required? Someone who isn’t me doesn’t want this innocent and mislead third party company CPM to fall foul of the wrath of the council. I heard it could even be a criminal offence! 

No doubt the management company gave them assurances that planning requirements were in place, along with contracts with all of the residents to enable the effective of ownership of the parking bays from residents to CPM in return for nothing 

Grizebeck

Forget sign planning irrelevant  
You need to nip this in the bud and not go on wild goose chases

Umkomaas

Signage isn't linked to 'Planning Permission'. It comes under the purview of 'Advertising Consent' and the enforcement authority is the local council. It relates to signage that exceeds certain dimensions (don't have those at my fingertips). Google! 

You will need to pursue via the local council and be terrier-like. Not seen any that have had the appetite to enforce the regulations, despite being a criminal issue. It cannot be backdated, but that hasn't stopped many councils, eager not to exercise their legal obligations, doing so. If you want to see obfuscation in front of your very own eyes, go ahead with a formal complaint. You'll need to be resilient. Get the support of your recently elected MP. 

Mullerice

Umkomaas said:

Signage isn't linked to 'Planning Permission'. It comes under the purview of 'Advertising Consent' and the enforcement authority is the local council. It relates to signage that exceeds certain dimensions (don't have those at my fingertips). Google! 

You will need to pursue via the local council and be terrier-like. Not seen any that have had the appetite to enforce the regulations, despite being a criminal issue. It cannot be backdated, but that hasn't stopped many councils, eager not to exercise their legal obligations, doing so. If you want to see obfuscation in front of your very own eyes, go ahead with a formal complaint. You'll need to be resilient. Get the support of your recently elected MP. 

Yep that’s the wording I’m looking for! I’ll look into it. 

Contestor Legal seem to be more positioned to help challenging PCNs than taking action against the management company - I’m confident CPM don’t have a leg to stand on here so they can keep wasting their time and money on this. 

Waiting on home insurance legal now - told up to 5 business days to reply 

Grizebeck

Mullerice said:

Umkomaas said:

Signage isn't linked to 'Planning Permission'. It comes under the purview of 'Advertising Consent' and the enforcement authority is the local council. It relates to signage that exceeds certain dimensions (don't have those at my fingertips). Google! 

You will need to pursue via the local council and be terrier-like. Not seen any that have had the appetite to enforce the regulations, despite being a criminal issue. It cannot be backdated, but that hasn't stopped many councils, eager not to exercise their legal obligations, doing so. If you want to see obfuscation in front of your very own eyes, go ahead with a formal complaint. You'll need to be resilient. Get the support of your recently elected MP. 

Yep that’s the wording I’m looking for! I’ll look into it. 

Contestor Legal seem to be more positioned to help challenging PCNs than taking action against the management company - I’m confident CPM don’t have a leg to stand on here so they can keep wasting their time and money on this. 

Waiting on home insurance legal now - told up to 5 business days to reply 

They would use their linked solicitors firm to do that.

Mullerice

Grizebeck said:

Mullerice said:

Umkomaas said:

Signage isn't linked to 'Planning Permission'. It comes under the purview of 'Advertising Consent' and the enforcement authority is the local council. It relates to signage that exceeds certain dimensions (don't have those at my fingertips). Google! 

You will need to pursue via the local council and be terrier-like. Not seen any that have had the appetite to enforce the regulations, despite being a criminal issue. It cannot be backdated, but that hasn't stopped many councils, eager not to exercise their legal obligations, doing so. If you want to see obfuscation in front of your very own eyes, go ahead with a formal complaint. You'll need to be resilient. Get the support of your recently elected MP. 

Yep that’s the wording I’m looking for! I’ll look into it. 

Contestor Legal seem to be more positioned to help challenging PCNs than taking action against the management company - I’m confident CPM don’t have a leg to stand on here so they can keep wasting their time and money on this. 

Waiting on home insurance legal now - told up to 5 business days to reply 

They would use their linked solicitors firm to do that.

I was told by the person on the phone that they only help challenging PCNs and that the management company can do whatever they like to control parking and there’s little I can do except comply and try to fight off the PCNs

Grizebeck

Mullerice said:

Grizebeck said:

Mullerice said:

Umkomaas said:

Signage isn't linked to 'Planning Permission'. It comes under the purview of 'Advertising Consent' and the enforcement authority is the local council. It relates to signage that exceeds certain dimensions (don't have those at my fingertips). Google! 

You will need to pursue via the local council and be terrier-like. Not seen any that have had the appetite to enforce the regulations, despite being a criminal issue. It cannot be backdated, but that hasn't stopped many councils, eager not to exercise their legal obligations, doing so. If you want to see obfuscation in front of your very own eyes, go ahead with a formal complaint. You'll need to be resilient. Get the support of your recently elected MP. 

Yep that’s the wording I’m looking for! I’ll look into it. 

Contestor Legal seem to be more positioned to help challenging PCNs than taking action against the management company - I’m confident CPM don’t have a leg to stand on here so they can keep wasting their time and money on this. 

Waiting on home insurance legal now - told up to 5 business days to reply 

They would use their linked solicitors firm to do that.

I was told by the person on the phone that they only help challenging PCNs and that the management company can do whatever they like to control parking and there’s little I can do except comply and try to fight off the PCNs

Who did you actually speak to.

Mullerice

Grizebeck said:

Who did you actually speak to.

I think I may have quoted the wrong reply by accident. Sorry about that. I’m referring to a call I had with someone from Contestor Legal services 

Without wanting to dox this person by name, they are a senior administration / case handler person

From an email received also: 

“ However, due to your circumstances we would advise you not to claim against CPM as a separate matter. We understand you are a leaseholder with the right to park in a specific bay following your tenancy agreement. The Landowner, within their rights, have entered into a contract with CPM to manage the residential car park. As the Landowner, they have the right to instruct a parking operator for such task and in doing so PCM have a legitimate contract to manage the land. In these circumstances, your grievance is with the landowner for not consulting the leaseholders/residents before the formal instruction of a third party.  

Based on our experience, we would advise against any action regarding the landowner or CPM as Judges generally agree that the Landowner has acted within their rightful capacity by instructing a third party to manage residential parking”

Is it true that judges agree that the landowner can unilaterally decide to give full control of my parking space to CPM?