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

Car1980

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.

Ignore the ruling but email this to UKCPM, return the permit and tell them you are no longer consenting and are withdrawing from the scheme.

Hopefully you will then get a new charge and then the IAS will be in a right pickle when you appeal again.

Coupon-mad

Wow, to the IAS: IMHO you are as bent as a nine bob note:

"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."

Come on now. How does a legally qualified person type such utter codswallop?

How about applying the basic starting position in law: only the parties in the lease/freehold and tenancy agreement can vary the rights in a lease?!

Anyway, to the OP, do NOT do this again:

" 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".

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.

Car1980 said:

Ignore the ruling but email this to UKCPM, return the permit and tell them you are no longer consenting and are withdrawing from the scheme.

Hopefully you will then get a new charge and then the IAS will be in a right pickle when you appeal again.

Totally agree.

Opt the bay OUT immediately. Insist.