UKCPM invoice for non-display of permit before arriving in post

Smearington

Hi All,

I have read the FAQs and am after some general advice on the next steps.  This is all new to me, and I have gone through a steep learning curve over the last few days with respect to private "tickets", but have made some errors along the way regarding appeals.

Moved to a new residence, which includes allocated parking for 2 bays under the terms of the tenancy agreement.  The bays are "managed" by CPM.  I paid for an annual permit for £5 the day after I moved in - this suggests I have knowingly contracted with CPM but did not think anything of it at the time.

I paid for a permit on 13 September, and received 2x invoices on 6 and 10 October respectively for non-display of a permit.  The permit arrived on 13 October and has been on display since.  CPM argues I should have displayed an E-permit for the intervening period as per the signage, but I have not received one and was not aware that I needed one.  The physical permit that has arrived and is dated "September 2025" i.e. before the alleged breaches occurred.

I appealed via CPM, which was rejected, and subsequently appealed via IAS, which I am learning is corrupt.  I am midway through the IAS appeal.

Reasons for appeal.  

1) The address on the "invoice" incorrectly refers to a different road
2) I paid for a permit, which was delayed in the post, so I am not at fault
3) I was not made aware by CPM that an e-permit would need to be displayed after purchasing a physical permit
4) The signage (genuinely) is over head height and small font, so it is difficult to read - I refer to the Equality Act and various regulations 

Issues

I have confirmed I was the driver 
I do not want a CCJ as I am in the process of obtaining a mortgage
I have contacted the managing agent for the road to see if they will instruct CPM to remove the ticket without success (simply will not answer the phone or emails)

Any guidance would be genuinely appreciated.  I am prepared to fight all the way with these cowboys. 

James_Poisson

Why do you think that a two bit parking scammer can just get a CCJ against you?

Did anyone tell you about an "E permit" or how to obtain one.

Do the signs mention an e permit.

What does your tenancy agreement say about parking, e permits etc.

The fact that you applied to them in good time means they had a record of your VRN and details they already had all they needed, the cynic in me might imagine they delayed the permit on purpose, part of their scam.

You won't win against the IAS they are corrupt to ignore anything else apart from a real court claim where it will be either cancelled at the 11th hour or a judge will decide next year. 

Smearington

James_Poisson said:

Why do you think that a two bit parking scammer can just get a CCJ against you?

Did anyone tell you about an "E permit" or how to obtain one.

Do the signs mention an e permit.

What does your tenancy agreement say about parking, e permits etc.

The fact that you applied to them in good time means they had a record of your VRN and details they already had all they needed, the cynic in me might imagine they delayed the permit on purpose, part of their scam.

You won't win against the IAS they are corrupt to ignore anything else apart from a real court claim where it will be either cancelled at the 11th hour or a judge will decide next year. 

Thanks for the response, James.

My concern, perhaps not based in reality, is that a court may support a contract has been created on the basis I had already paid for a permit, and the signage states an e-permit or valid permit should be visible.  

No one has informed me about an e permit.

The tenancy agreement provides for exclusive possession of the "premises" which, within its definition, includes parking bays.

I agree with your cynicism regarding the delay.

Thank you for the heads up on IAS - what is likely to happen next, assuming they reject my appeal?

Coupon-mad

You'll get the threatograms shown in pictures in post 4 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Smearington

Coupon-mad said:

You'll get the threatograms shown in pictures in post 4 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Thank you, all noted.

Car1980

 I paid for an annual permit for £5 the day after I moved in - this suggests I have knowingly contracted with CPM but did not think anything of it at the time.

I paid for a permit on 13 September

A permit is short for permission at the end of the day. You were paying for permission to park.

What does all the paperwork say regarding the transaction? Scope for plenty of Consumer Rights Act 2015 breaches as this is a different contractual relationship than the usual signage.

They'll have great difficulty if you have a contract with them to park which makes no reference or has no relationship with a completely unrelated contract on a sign.

Also, forget the tenancy agreement, you need to get hold of the flat's lease. Ask your landlord or another owner-occupier in the development. Who's to say CPM have any rights over the space in the first place?

Smearington

Car1980 said:

 I paid for an annual permit for £5 the day after I moved in - this suggests I have knowingly contracted with CPM but did not think anything of it at the time.

I paid for a permit on 13 September

A permit is short for permission at the end of the day. You were paying for permission to park.

What does all the paperwork say regarding the transaction? Scope for plenty of Consumer Rights Act 2015 breaches as this is a different contractual relationship than the usual signage.

They'll have great difficulty if you have a contract with them to park which makes no reference or has no relationship with a completely unrelated contract on a sign.

Also, forget the tenancy agreement, you need to get hold of the flat's lease. Ask your landlord or another owner-occupier in the development. Who's to say CPM have any rights over the space in the first place?

We have a lease of a house (renting), and our landlord is the freeholder.  The adjacent road is privately owned by the original developer, who has, through their managing agent, employed CPM to "manage" the parking bays.  The freehold title permits rights to park in the allocated bays on the privately owned road, and we have been passed those rights via our landlord through the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Car1980

So the house is freehold and your landlord is the freeholder?

What specifically do his freehold deeds state about the parking rights on the road?

Coupon-mad

The freehold title prevails.

See the case law: the Duchess of Bedford House case. 

Le_Kirk

.......... and how the heck do you "display" an e-permit?

Smearington

Thank you to everyone who assisted me with this case.

Unsurprisingly, the IAS dismissed my appeal (copy below for info), but I managed to get the freeholder to overturn it following escalation and persistence.

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that the vehicle did not have a valid permit or e-permit at the time of the parking event. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit or e-permit in accordance with the terms.

The Appellant has claimed that the operator has provided the wrong address however from the Appellant's own evidence it can be seen that permits are issued for the whole estate known as Brooks Dye Works and therefore the parking charge has been correctly issued.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to have a valid e-permit and by not displaying such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have displayed a valid permit for the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere, only returning at such a time as they were able to comply.

Whilst the Appellant maintains that as a resident they have a right to park, this does not override the terms and conditions that the driver accepts by choosing to park on the site. Only the driver and the Operator can vary the terms of the contract by mutual agreement.

The Appellant claims they have a right to park under their tenancy agreement. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their tenancy agreement, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is correct that a right in a tenancy agreement would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. However, this is not unilateral, as the Appellant has consented to it. By agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has agreed to waive any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not.

The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to have registered their vehicle and have a valid permit or e-permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver does not have a valid permit or e-permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear and sets out the parking tariffs that apply.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"