Gladstones LBC , CPM PCN given whilst working

The_Deep wrote: »

Read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

residents have right. and these tickets usually infringe them,

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies[/FONT]

Thank you for your link - this is very interesting because it seems that one of the main points in favour of the RK in this case could be where PP states the following :-
"The Signage - No Offer

If the wording of the signage forbids parking, then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company".

the signs at this car park do not offer any contract at all and so it would seem that the CPM did not act lawfully by issuing the PCN the 1st place -

There are no signs at the entrance and there are about 4 signs dotted around in this very small car park which are all the same

http://

An email has been received from the CPM DPO stating that if the D wants the information by email that more information is needed other than the proof of the V5 doc that was sent .

A draft email has also been put together from all the very helpful suggestions given and I am posting that 1st draft here to see if it is OK or if there is anything missing that needs to be included

All and any comments are most welcome

To Whom it may concern

REF 1xxxxxxx – PCN number xxxxx

I write as the registered keeper of vehicle with vehicle reg xxxxx

Legal and debt advice is being sought and appointments with Citizens advice bureau are going to be made and therefore I would be grateful if you can confirm that a 30 day hold will be put on this matter to give time to arrange the necessary appointments.

Your letter states that if it is believed that if there is a valid reason for non-payment then a reply pursuant to Para 4 of the PAP under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is able to be made. This email is provided to confirm the valid reasons for non-payment under Para 4 of the above CP rules.
The £60 your client has added for 'indemnity or nominal costs/loss' is a complete lie and is a sum which your client is not entitled to recover and will be vigorously contested in the event of a claim being served for any sum over and above the 'parking charge' . Full costs on the indemnity basis will be sought when the case is won.

As has already been explained to your client, the driver of the vehicle was attending to the lawful business of delivering food to a local resident and as detailed in the attached Jopson v Homeguard it confirms very clearly that your client clearly has no cause of action because Jopson was about unloading in a residential site which is exactly what the driver was doing at the time the PCN was given and the driver was penalised for being one minute over the 10 minute grace period. I encourage you to read the text of this case fully.

The signage at the site forbids parking and therefore there is no offer to park and therefore no contract is possible and as such only the landowner has the lawful right to make a claim. The following cases will be used as evidence in court if your client refuses to cancel the PCN and seeks to make a claim.
1. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016] where residents were parking on access roads that the signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
2. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company therefore did not have standing to claim.
3. In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
It is evident that from the 3 cases above that if a trespass had occurred then only the landowner could make a claim against the driver and your client does not have any standing to claim and as such their authority to operate will be challenged . The Driver will be challenging your client to prove their authority to operate should your client refuse to cancel this PCN

It is clear that your client has no case against the driver and as such it is requested that you advise your clients of the facts and instruct them to cancel this PCN with immediate effect. If your client refuses and pursues legal action, this will be vigorously contested and defended.