CPM - Flat Parking says visitors must register but there’s no kiosk

crazyladybug34

Hi all,

Ive been fighting with CPM as I parked in the flat where my boyfriend lives. It used to have no parking operator, now unfortunately it does. 

They’ve put up their usual signs plus this one which clearly says visitors must register on the kiosk, but theirs is no kiosk so I’ve parked where I usually do in his flats. I wrote to them saying I won’t be paying as your sign is incorrect. I parked under the impression visitors were allowed, you have just failed to put a kiosk (which they definitely won’t do). 

They came back to me and accepted the confusion but have still said I’ve breached their contract. They’ve reduced the fee to £20 from £60 and if I’m not happy go to the IAS. 

Should I do this, just ignore it or pay the £20? 

Surely if it went to court, I’d win as their signage is incorrect. 

Thanks for any help! 

Nellymoser

It's good they accepted the confusing sign but did they say how they think you still breached the contract?
Keep that £20 note in your purse. Maybe appeal to IAS, be interesting to see how they would decide on this one but wait for the regulars to reply.

Coupon-mad

I'd take it to the IAS, not using any template appeal. Just state that the term in the contract to use a non-existent kiosk is 'void for impossibility of performance'. Put them to proof that on the material date there was such a 'kiosk' in place, prominently positioned, accessible and visible to all visitors to the flats and that this new unsolicited system was working.

Is your bf a tenant or a leaseholder?

The residents should NEVER EVER have agreed to this unwanted detriment which now runs the place he lives in like a commercial car park and seeks to catch out residents and visitors. Leaseholders should have objected. This regime interferes with their lease rights and easements.

This unsuitable scheme is all about the greed of UKCPM, an ex-wheelclamper firm. Residents gain nothing from it and already enjoy rights to park that supersede any stupid signs! I hope he isn't paying for a permit?!

tonyblairgaming

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

crazyladybug34

Coupon-mad said:

I'd take it to the IAS, not using any template appeal. Just state that the term in the contract to use a non-existent kiosk is 'void for impossibility of performance'. Put them to proof that on the material date there was such a 'kiosk' in place, prominently positioned, accessible and visible to all visitors to the flats and that this new unsolicited system was working.

Is your bf a tenant or a leaseholder?

The residents should NEVER EVER have agreed to this unwanted detriment which now runs the place he lives in like a commercial car park and seeks to catch out residents and visitors. Leaseholders should have objected. This regime interferes with their lease rights and easements.

This unsuitable scheme is all about the greed of UKCPM, an ex-wheelclamper firm. Residents gain nothing from it and already enjoy rights to park that supersede any stupid signs! I hope he isn't paying for a permit?!

On their reply it says if I appeal to the IAS I won’t be able to pay the £20 reduced fee. So I’m hesitant as I think they’ll catch me out for the point of “if unsure seek further advice or refrain from parking” I did neither. 

It’s a council flat so tenant. I’ve complained to the housing company already as I’m unsure why they’ve put it in place when parking was never a problem before. Should I complain to them again? 

He doesn’t drive so no permit for him but I’m unsure if residents do have to pay for a permit or if they just go off the address of the car. 

crazyladybug34

tonyblairgaming said:

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

If I appeal it says I’ll have to pay the full £60. Is there a way to pay the £20 still if I’d lose? 

kryten3000

No, they want you to pay them £20 without further question. Any further appeal loses access to the discount amount so the charge will revert to the full £100.

Coupon-mad

crazyladybug34 said:

tonyblairgaming said:

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

If I appeal it says I’ll have to pay the full £60. Is there a way to pay the £20 still if I’d lose? 

I don't understand.

You'll never pay this, regardless!

crazyladybug34

Coupon-mad said:

crazyladybug34 said:

tonyblairgaming said:

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

If I appeal it says I’ll have to pay the full £60. Is there a way to pay the £20 still if I’d lose? 

I don't understand.

You'll never pay this, regardless!

They've offered me to pay £20 for the confusion

 this is what they’ve sent 

PAYMENT DUE DATE: 18th July 2025

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £20.00                                                                                

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked without a valid virtual permit for the full and correct registration, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

tonyblairgaming

crazyladybug34 said:

tonyblairgaming said:

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

If I appeal it says I’ll have to pay the full £60. Is there a way to pay the £20 still if I’d lose? 

Ah, ignore what I said then.

If you're fine with the paperwork let it go to IAS/county court, paperwork is not hard at all it's just not something you should rush or ignore.

You'll win and they know this! Why else would they offer such a low settlement fee

Coupon-mad

crazyladybug34 said:

Coupon-mad said:

crazyladybug34 said:

tonyblairgaming said:

Hmm, £20 is a low enough fee to make me consider paying...

Personally I'd see what the IAS say, and if you lose I'd offer to pay that, the time I'd spend defending a court claim is worth more than £20

If I appeal it says I’ll have to pay the full £60. Is there a way to pay the £20 still if I’d lose? 

I don't understand.

You'll never pay this, regardless!

They've offered me to pay £20 for the confusion

 this is what they’ve sent 

PAYMENT DUE DATE: 18th July 2025

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £20.00                                                                                

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked without a valid virtual permit for the full and correct registration, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

Yes we know.

But a reasonable person doesn't pay £20 to shut up a notoriously greedy 'scam' ex-wheelclamper and I already explained how to appeal to the IAS (and so what if it's refused). It doesn't matter.

Like I said, you won't pay 20p let alone more!