Ticket from CPM for a car park where I am a leaseholder!

The MC may well have contracted with the PPC not to interfere in its pursuance of drivers to pay its "charges". But they cannot hide behind that to absolve themselves of any responsibility. More fool them for entering into a stupid contract that exposes them to liability.


The MC is liable - first the PPC is acting as its agent so they are liable for all wrongs committed by the PPC, second because they (probably) wrongly interfered with your rights by bringing in the PPC in the first place, thirdly because they cannot impose new terms into your leasehold title.


If it gets to the stage of court proceedings, plenty of threads on here about joining the MC as a party to the proceedings and making a claim against them.


I think you should write to the MC formally now, once the leasehold points have been clarified:
1. to ask them to get the charge cancelled
2. to point out that the clause in the PPC contract does not absolve them of their legal obligations and duties
3. to put them on notice that you will hold them liable for all your losses and inconvenience in dealing with this matter
4. to put them on notice that should this matter proceed to court, then you will join them as a party to any proceedings and make a counterclaim against them


It's also time to get the residents together to put pressure on the MC because this situation is only going to get worse. MCs are blindly bringing PPCs onto a huge number of residential sites and it's time they understood that they can't just pass the buck for their over zealous ticketing.


I'm still smiling at the thought of the PPC videoing its lackey posting leaflets through everyone's doors!


If the MC is suitably pressurised, it should try to get your ticket cancelled, or better still end the contract. The contract probably contains a clause obliging the PPC to comply with its ATA Code of Practice - the Code should state that there should be some sort of grace period before new parking terms are enforced, and your PPC is clearly in breach of this. For instance, if your PPC is a member of the BPA then this is in clause 18.11 of the CoP:


18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I actually had a dream last night about the PPC person putting leaflets/letters through the letterboxes. So I do apologise if I'm taking this a bit personally.


Make a collection of all the pizza/UPVC windows/gardening services/begging letters from Red Cross, NSPCC etc, many of which are in sealed envelopes addressed to "the Occupier" etc etc, that gets put through your letterbox in a typical month. Then when the time comes you can ask them how you were supposed to distinguish the thing they posted through your letterbox from all of these. You need to show that you were given no notice of the changes and this will illustrate the point perfectly and make them look like the complete numpties they are.

Agreed. The scammers should know who the residents are if they intend to enter into a contract with them. Sending an alleged letter detailing something they intend to rely on in contact law must include a name in my humble opinion. (Unless of course your name is, Mr/Mrs The Occupier.)

Any reasonable person (the ubiquitous Man on the Clapham omnibus) would expect a contract to be addressed to them in person.
If it ever got to court you would require them to provide strict proof such a legally binding document was received by that named individual.

No need.

If you have not appealed as keeper, now is the time for a carefully worded challenge to UKCPM and complaint to the MA.

blankwall wrote: »

So I shouldn't be going for a POPLA code? The MA is a better option for now?
Thanks for the advice.

UKCPM are not BPA operators, therefore POPLA isn't available to you.

blankwall wrote: »

Their website (whose URL I am unable to post) has the BPA logo on it. Should it have been removed?

1. This one?



2. Or this one?