Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 18th Dec 17, 1:51 PM
    • 106Posts
    • 54Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    PCN - parking in my own space
    • #1
    • 18th Dec 17, 1:51 PM
    PCN - parking in my own space 18th Dec 17 at 1:51 PM
    Hey guys.


    Cut a long story slightly short. I own my property in a small gated apartment development. The property mamagement director decided to implement a parking company ( CPM uk car park management ) last August because he was being petty and bitter that the residents were forming an association and complaining about the management of the complex + residents were using 2nd cars to park in visitors bays.



    Anyway, we all received our own permits without any justification, apart from a rubbish forceful email stating we were now having to dispaly these permits. I recieved one which is for my own parking space. Now, I had no choice at this moment in time but to abide by the new "rules" and put my permit on my dashboard and on this particular occasion a few months down the line, I shut my door and the wind must of blew the permit off.



    I received a PCN for parking in my own bloody space as my permit wasn't on the dashboard. Anyway I sent an appeal letter basically stating this is my own space and providing them with a copy of my permit , plus I explained the reasoning why my permit fell off. I also put in my letter, if this is rejected can they provide me with a popla code.




    I just received a letter back today rejecting my appeal explaining they acknowledge my proof of permit but because I didn't display the permit properly, I need to pay the fine. They obviously have the photo evidence on the letter to. Obviously no way in a million years am I paying these !!!!s any sort of money to park in my own private parking space. I also appealed via IAS, as i felt that i can atleast justify in court if need be, that i went down every avenue to try and overturn this charge. What do I do now?


    I had a quick look at the newbies thread which looks very helpful but there is a lot of detail on it so I'm not sure if my particular case is relevant and if I can get a template from someone so I can write back to these


    Thank you
    Last edited by nasescoba1985; 09-02-2018 at 8:52 AM. Reason: Add more info
Page 10
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Feb 18, 4:19 PM
    • 9,453 Posts
    • 9,190 Thanks
    The Deep
    I parked at Morrisons yesterday. Their signs contained scads of T&C in very small print. Do they really expect someone who wants to buy a tin of beans to read this stuff. Is it reasonable?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 9th Feb 18, 4:37 PM
    • 4,375 Posts
    • 4,406 Thanks
    DoaM
    The PE signs in my local Aldi are similar ... 8'+ up a pole with T&Cs in tiny font; even getting as close as I could I was unable to read any of the small font text. Even taking a photo and zooming the text was unreadable.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 9th Feb 18, 4:38 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    True. The signs are atrocious and when entering the car park, you don't actually catch eye of the signs because they are on the right hand side. I drive around to the left to park in my space. Maybe i will use this in my defence. I feel i am prepared now, so i'm just waiting on hopefully a reply from the local MP and the obvious incoming threatening letters from UK CPM which i will obviously ignore Any other advice would be great guys, thanks
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 22nd Feb 18, 11:21 AM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Guys,

    Contacted my local MP via email and got a reply back from the secretary explaining he couldn't get involved in legal matters. Anyway, I thought I would email Sir Greg Knight instead and put my story across, as onviouslt hoping to introduce a law to stop these rogue parking companies. Just received a reply from the secretary thanking me for getting in touch and that she will pass on my email for him to read. Obviously he can't communicate with me personally, but she's willing to use my case as evidence for Greg Knight when it comes to the next prices of his is bill he's introducing. Thought I would give you all an update.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 22nd Feb 18, 12:45 PM
    • 2,647 Posts
    • 3,323 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    "Contacted my local MP via email and got a reply back from the secretary explaining he couldn't get involved in legal matters."

    I would contact said secretary and tell him/her that you now wont be getting involved with voting matters!

    Keep up the effort

    good luck

    Ralph
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 22nd Feb 18, 4:58 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Cheers Ralph. I'm actually looking forward to the debt collecting letters to come, so I can build up a collection and laugh at them.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 10:42 PM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Guys,

    Contacted my local MP via email and got a reply back from the secretary explaining he couldn't get involved in legal matters. Anyway, I thought I would email Sir Greg Knight instead and put my story across, as onviouslt hoping to introduce a law to stop these rogue parking companies. Just received a reply from the secretary thanking me for getting in touch and that she will pass on my email for him to read.

    Obviously he can't communicate with me personally, but she's willing to use my case as evidence for Greg Knight when it comes to the next prices of his is bill he's introducing. Thought I would give you all an update.
    Originally posted by nasescoba1985
    Good - what if EVERYONE HERE with the worst offending rogue PCNs, did this!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Feb 18, 7:26 AM
    • 17,976 Posts
    • 28,448 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Contacted my local MP via email and got a reply back from the secretary explaining he couldn't get involved in legal matters.
    Utterly appalling cop out. Ask him what his views are on the Sir Greg Knight Bill, that won unanimous support at the second reading a couple of weeks ago.

    Does he opt out of all legal matters? What if you were having an issue with your council, or the local police? Would he also cast you adrift on the basis he couldn't get involved in legal matters.

    Why does he take his MP's salary if he can't get involved in legal matters. Surely 'legal matters' form a large part of what a MP's job is about. Via Parliament, he's a law maker for goodness sake!

    Chocolate teapot! Use your next vote, but give him hell meantime.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 21st Mar 18, 4:00 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Hey guys,

    No real update yet since I received that "formal " you must pay !!!!!!!! letter from UK CPM. My local PM secretary got back to me, saying they would get in contact with Sir Greg Knight to discuss my case. Wether this happens or not, is another matter.

    Anyway , just a quickie, I'm pretty much drafting all my defence together now, even though I'm no where near that stage yet.

    It's in regards to on the signage defence. Obviously my lease should be more than enough and my primacy of contract should win this hands down, but I want to get the best defence possible and have some questions regarding signage.

    Where my vehicle is parked, there is actually no signage whatsoever on the wall behind my car and opposite. I have taken photographic evidence of this. The only signage is 3 small signs when you enter the car park, on the right hand wall. I turn left and no way could I actually see any signs. Surely if there are no signs visible on my area of the car park, they have no leg to stand on?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Mar 18, 4:44 PM
    • 17,976 Posts
    • 28,448 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Surely if there are no signs visible on my area of the car park, they have no leg to stand on?
    They may well not have a leg to stand on, but the only person who will determine that definitively is a Judge. You will need to have your ducks in a row (Code of Practice) to help the Judge reach his/her decision in your favour.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 21st Mar 18, 5:37 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    True. Although you would like to think with my lease and a good defence, would be astonishing if lose this, it it does indeed go to court. Nothing points in the parking firms direction whatsoever.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Mar 18, 6:02 PM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We've seen one or two residential cases lost (not lost by us on this forum but it's never guaranteed).

    Compare the transcript of Link v Parkinson, to that of Link v Blaney. The Parking Prankster hosts the former winning case here (for some reason, he doesn't have the Blaney case that was lost...):

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

    but the BMPA does:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004207805-Link-v-Blaney-C9GF03Q9

    Spot the difference.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 22nd Mar 18, 2:01 AM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    @ coup, yes I have read both those transcripts. The blaney one hopefully doesn't relate to mine as my lease has no hidden extras where the management company can implement a parking company. Sounds like the lease of these guys had a hidden agenda which lost them the case. Plus they occurre a hefty load of charges over a period of time. The other case more relates to mine where the defendant won the case on her lease rights alone.
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 22nd Mar 18, 3:05 AM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Guys,

    Can someone just briefly look at my draft defense i have compiled and just give me feedback if this is a strong defense or not, or if it needs altering/ changed please? I go travelling with my partner in xxx and the last thing i want is to be away and having to draft a defense together whilst abroad, so i'm pretty much writing a defense out as if i am close to the court stages. Obviously i will alter bits if it corresponds with what ever needs changing but below is my defense and i just want to get some feedback please.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the county court xxxx Claim No:xxxxxx

    Between: xxxxxx

    And. ... Defendant

    xxxx



    Defence



    I, xxxxxxxx, Defendant in this case, deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    1. This matter relates to a parking charge issued to the defendants vehicle (registration: xxxxx on xxxxxxx. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of this vehicle.

    Background

    2. Prior to the parking enforcement appointment, the small gated development and residents of xxxxxx enjoyed peaceful usage of the allocated spaces and parking facilities provided when purchasing the properties. No problems occurred between residents and under no circumstances could any outside member of the public gain access to the complex, due to strict fob only and code access for residents only. The residents received an email on xxxxx from Mr xxxxxx on behalf of xxxxxx management, to notify tenants of a parking management company being implemented. The permits were put through the door of every tenant a week later. No consultation was made prior to this and an appointment was made in breach of the tenants lease. The tenant had no choice but to comply with the current regime and display a permit, until matters were resolved. Under no circumstances did the defendant enter in any contract with the parking management company whatsoever.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract


    3. The defendant confirms that their vehicle was parked in Bay x on xxxxxx , belonging to Flat x xxxxxxxxxxxx(address of property) . The vehicle was parked there as the defendant is the owner of Flat x and Bay x is allocated as per lease. The defendant has the right to park in their own space and have the right to peaceful unfettered enjoyment of the space as they please. Unfettered meaning exactly that, i.e no requirement to follow rules, conditions or other punitive terms for use of the areas which are absent from the defendants lease. The primacy of contract can't be altered and there is no mention in the defendants lease of a permit needing to be displayed, parking restrictions or the right for the management company to change the terms of the lease without the defendants permission. As no parking constraints mentioned in the defendants lease, then the defendant does have unfettered use with the right of peaceful enjoyment of the facilities within their housing complex. The defendant did not enter into any "agreement on the charge", no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


    4. The defendant tried to be compliant in their 1st letter explaining the circumstances as to why the permit fell off the dashboard, but the claimant proved to be very unreasonable in this matter. The claimant acknowledged the defendant was the rightful owner of the parking space in their rejection letter as the defendant provided them with photocopy proof of permit, which relates to Bay x in question, but the claimant still refused to overturn the PCN.

    5. As the claimant has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the terms of the defendants lease , the defendant has assumed that it relates to an alleged breach of contract.

    6. Therefore, liability for the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety based on the well-established legal principle of primacy of contract: the agreement (ITEM X) that exists between the Owner of Flat x and management company extends to the use of the specified parking space and overrides any purported contract conveyed by the claimants insufficient, demonstrably illegible signage (Items X). The tenants contract makes no assertion that a permit must be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of 100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so (Item X, pages xyz). The tenancy agreement's lack of specificity on any conditions related to parking in the relevant bay can only be construed that none of the restrictions asserted by the claimant apply.

    7. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of PACE RECOVERY v MR N.Redacted (2016) - Claim No. C6GF14F0, Link Parking LTD v Jayne Gaynor Parkinson (2016) - Claim No: G7GF50J7 and Link parking Ltd v Mr David and Michael Blaney (2017) - Claim No:C9GF03Q9. The Court will be referred to these and further similar fact cases that mirror the exact same circumstance as the defendants case in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. The defendant has printed transcripts of all these cases that are relevant to this.

    8.Accordingly it is denied that:
    8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    8.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    8.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    9. The defendant contends, therefore, that the tenant's agreement provides an unfettered right to park in their assigned bay for themselves and their invited guests. This cannot be superseded, altered, or ignored by a parking management company post hoc.

    10. The defendant believes that any parking management company with a legitimate interest in protecting the parking rights of a residential space; which is surely their only purpose; would immediately rescind any charges issued to residents and their legitimate visitors, especially when it relates to parking in the residents own allocated space.

    11. In this belief, therefore, the defendant appealed, as the keeper of the vehicle, on X DATE (ITEM X).

    12. The defendants appeal was rejected with the claimant behaving very unreasonably (see ITEM x).


    13. An offer to appeal to an independent arbitrator was made on xxxxxx ,to the Independent appeals service (IAS) , which was investigated but rejected on xxxxx via email, despite the defendant providing evidence snippets of the lease which prove the defendants unfettered rights to park in the allocated space and providing proof of permit which proved the defendant was the owner of the property and parking space in question.


    14. It should be noted at this point that the !!!8216;Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which the IPC utilises as its alternative dispute resolution, has a prominent reputation of biased rulings in favour of parking operators. Evidence supporting this assertion is readily available in the public domain, and appeals made by motorists through this service are largely futile. Unlike the equivalent service, offered by the BPA, Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA), the IAS lacks any independent scrutinising body, and it defies the usual methodology of an ADR service by expecting the consumer (rather than the claimant) to bear the burden of proof, and by using anonymous assessors, contrary to usual ADR rules.
    a. Statistics show that in the twelve months ending 31st March 2015, 52.65% of appeals made to POPLA were allowed, while 47.35% were refused. For the IAS, however, only around 20% of appeals were upheld, with the opposing 80% refused in favour of parking operators.
    b. Crucially, the IPC, who utilise the IAS, is a company formed and directed by Misters Will Hurley and John Davies, who, incidentally, are the same individuals who run Gladstones Solicitors (SEE ITEMS XYZ, Companies House data), the claimants current representative (and a prolific agent working on behalf of parking management companies in the small claims court). Any opportunity of a fair review of one's appeal under the IAS is absolutely lost, since it is clearly in the best interest of the IAS to refuse motorists their appeals, allowing Gladstones Solicitors to pick up the debts and take the cases to small claims court.

    15. Therefore, the defendant believes no reasonable efforts were made to resolve this dispute outside of court. It can clearly be seen from the defendants own correspondence that attempts were made in the 2nd appeal to provide sufficient snippets of photocopy evidence of the defendants lease to IAS, which gives them the unfettered right for peaceful enjoyment of their own parking space, but this was met with a rejection.

    16. The majority of the correspondence received from the claimant, their debt recovery partners, and their representation, has been threatening, misleading, and in several instances, absolutely duplicitous (ITEMS XYZ, letter from CPM; DRP and Gladstones masquerade; threats to credit rating, etc.)

    17. Accordingly, it is maintained that the defendant has no liability for this debt and that the claimant has acted immorally and deceitfully on several occasions, pursuing the alleged debt in an aggressive and intimidating fashion, with the singular intention of coercing the debt from the defendant with continued threats of legal action. No effort was made whatsoever to address the very reasonable assertions made by the defendant that the driver had every right to park in the bay in question; if this particular parking management company truly aimed to protect the rights of residents, this matter could have been resolved amicably and swiftly, without the need of involving the courts.

    18. The claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of .... The defendant also has the reasonable belief that the claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. The additional sum claimed for interest is an insult to justice and evidence of the claimants wilful and vexatious abuse of the court process.


    Failure to set out clear parking terms


    19. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

    20. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to the primary defence above, woefully inadequate.

    21. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, size, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

    22. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

    23. There is no signage whatsoever on any of the walls opposite and behind the area where the defendants vehicle was photographed and parked, as per photographic evidence. Thus making the ridiculous signage argument embarrassing. The Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory, states that Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign. The signage in the area does not meet this requirement.


    Counter Claim


    24. The defendant would also like to counter claim for a data breach as they believe, the claimant have no good cause to obtain the defendants data from the DVLA, which in turn is a data breach and illegal. ( see letter ) where the claimant admitted to obtaining the defendants data through the DVLA without permission .

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    SIGNED
    DATE
    Last edited by nasescoba1985; 22-03-2018 at 3:15 AM.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 22nd Mar 18, 9:15 AM
    • 4,375 Posts
    • 4,406 Thanks
    DoaM
    Defence ... we're not the 51st state (yet)
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 22nd Mar 18, 11:05 AM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    HAHA bloody iPhone must love Americans

    Defence ok?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Mar 18, 12:51 AM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes the wording is good (bit long but who am I to talk?!). I realise you are NOT at claim stage yet.

    What you do not need at defence stage, is any evidence attached, so no need for things like:
    (see ITEM x).
    That will come later, nearer the hearing, not with the defence.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 23rd Mar 18, 3:30 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Hello Coup. I pretty much got most of my evidence ready and waiting. It's literally a case of waiting for the debt collector letters etc ( if they do come ) and reference to that really in my defence if need be.

    I have printed pictures of the no signage in front of my car and behind it + the poor signage on the wall furthest away from where I park.

    My lease is ready in my bundle, along with my property information form I was telling you about, which has the property management company signing and ticking NO in the box, when asked if the parking was restricted or required permits. This was signed 2015.

    I have all the letters from UK CPM + my appeal letters in the pack.

    I have printed transcripts of the court cases that mirror mine and have referred to them in my defence.

    Sound pretty prepared ?

    After all that, they probably won't even pursue it
    • nasescoba1985
    • By nasescoba1985 13th Apr 18, 3:14 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    nasescoba1985
    Hey guys,

    Thought I would send a last strong email to my property management company and try get this cancelled. Just received an email back today from the property manager to say UK CPM have now cancelled my ticket. Looks like my email worked I will contact UK CPM just to make sure


    My email
    Below .....................



    Good evening ,


    As I communicated with you previously in regards to a parking ticket I received in my own private space ( Bay 5 ) on 30/11/2017, I have since got some legal advice and whilst I have a very strong case in Court to fight this on my own, I have been advised that you as the property management company has the right to intervene and get this parking PCN cancelled.

    If it was you that hired Uk CPM, then as the agent, you are vicariously liable for the actions of that agent.

    As this matter hasn't reached the stages anywhere close to Court yet, there is no reason whatsoever why you can't get UK CPM to rescind this parking charge, when clearly the charge itself is very unreasonable, when they are trying to charge me for parking in my own private space.

    This is causing unwarranted needless stress, when it can be resolved amicably and swiftly by yourselves.

    We as owners of Flat x pay our service charge and ground rent on time and in full every time we are billed, so as curtesy to good owners, surely you wouldn't want to see this sort of thing occur. Not to mention the fact that UK CPM are supposedly serving the best interests of the residents. This couldn't be further from the truth, if they are fining residents in their own space.

    The parking charge notice ref is - xxxxx

    I would like you to contact UK CPM and get this cancelled please,

    If not, I would like a detailed response as to why in writing, so I can use this in court in my defence ,


    Regards

    Xxxxx
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,059Posts Today

8,359Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Quick #eng pre-match poll. What result do you predict?

  • I agree this glitch wasn't flights for 1p it was flights for c. £200 - I think many would've expected that to be th? https://t.co/QUTnlBLPkj

  • Was the BA fare glitch fair? Are you one of those let down by BA cancelling cheap flights to Tel Avivandr Dubai? H? https://t.co/PvN8Zaxbue

  • Follow Martin