Claim Form Received (UK CPM) - Update 30/01/2019

airborne350 · 24 December 2018 at 1:53PM

Hi All,

I'm happy with the claim form process, so thanks for the fantastic threads to date.

I have filed my AOS and have drafted a claim which I'll post before long.

I wanted to query a couple of points which I wish to highlight, and test the water with you fine folk.

1. There are no highway code markings despite being a major through road leading into a major retail outley and used by 1000s of people each day ( I know the answer here)

2. The signage at the time of my claim is not in view of the vehicle when it was parked, and since the signs have been halved in height as they were sporadic and too high to read (I have then and now proof) - No signage in view of the photo I received

3. Minibuses and other vehicles regularly park in the location without penalty (No distinguishment) which is misleading and causes other vehicles to park close by.

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks

The_Deep · 24 December 2018 at 2:25PM

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

KeithP · 24 December 2018 at 4:01PM

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

airborne350 · 24 December 2018 at 4:14PM

10 DEC

I've responded.

KeithP · 24 December 2018 at 4:22PM

airborne350 wrote: »

10 DEC.

I know you've said you are happy with the process, but maybe there is something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Sign it and date it.
Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

airborne350 · 6 January 2019 at 8:29PM

Thanks! I will post my defence here shortly for confirmation.

One thing, I have received a claim form and nothing else as yet (My parents address received the claim form and i work overseas alot) so I haven't had time to submit a SAR to understand the information they hold on me.

Further Information:

Claim is for outside Costa Coffee in Farnborough Business Park. Car Park was full and car was parallel parked opposite. There are no highway code markings. The main road is a through road and there is no differentiation between a public highway which ends at the nearby roundabout and private land of the business park.
Minibuses from business park tenants consistently park in the location creating ambiguity for all motorists on the applicability of the inadequate signage!

Secondly, some points I might wish to include:

1. Signage is unclear by a passing vehicle in any case
2. Signage is unclear unless a person is within 6-10ft and on foot.
3. Signage is set too high for a person to effectively read as part of natural visual attention and scanning.
4. No signage exists on the side of the road that the vehicles was parked which is therefore extremely misleading and open to interpretation, coupled with the fact that highway code markings do not exist on the road in question. (Plus there are consistently minubuses which appear to be exempt parking in the location in question, further misleading a person as to the applicability and limitations of the signage in question)
5. There is no differentiation between exit from the public highway and the entrance to private
land.

Waiting to be corrected!

Thanks

airborne350 · 7 January 2019 at 2:46PM

I have been to the location for possible evidence.

There are double yellow lines now in the location.

There were not double yellow lines at the time of CN issue, or when evidence was gathered in June 2018.

airborne350 · 7 January 2019 at 11:47PM

My draft defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date: it was not parked on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction to any traffic.

3. The defendant is an observant and reasonable individual who has made the actions only of a reasonable individual in this case.

4. The claimants road markings at the time of the claim must be defined as inadequate and not permissible in forming a binding contract, as at the time of the claim in January 2018 no road markings were present in-line with the highway code to dissuade a reasonable person from parking in the location. Furthermore, Evidence gathered by the claimant in June 2018 highlights that still no road markings existed in the location of the issued PCN. As of January 2019 further evidence has been gathered which clearly highlights the previously inadequate and impermissible markings, as there are now double yellow lines marking the entire area in question.

5. At no point is is made clear at the location of the claim that a vehicle is entering private land, or that this stretch of road is different from the public highway. There was no signage or highway code markings which provide adequate understanding for a reasonable person that they are either on private land or the public highway. The business park which is the scene of they claim is a major through-road and is not marked to ensure motorists are aware of being on private land, away from the public highway at the time of the issued PCN.

6. The claimants signage is ambiguous and provides confusion, as the symbol used by the claimant on their signage is the highway code symbol for parking (A white P on a blue background is used by the claimant), which, to a reasonable person acting reasonably shall usually assume that parking exists to some extent in a location. The defendant has sought examples of parking signs, none of which used by the claimant highlight “no parking” in-line with the highway code guidance.

7.. At the time of issue, and since with further evidence gathered, there is no signage displayed on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the location. This is misleading the motorist that parking was not permitted in the location in question. Furthermore, and in-line with the photo displayed by the claimant on the original PCN, the signage is unreadable from the location the vehicle was parked.

8. Ambiguity exists consistently in the location, as vehicles apparently exempt from the terms outlined by the claimant continually park in the specific location outlined in the claim. As a result it is not clear to a motorist that the area is in fact bound by the claimants terms, due to the consistent parking by exempt vehicles creating confusion as to the status of the land in question. At the time of issue, and clear in the image, other vehicles are parked in this location and have since continued to do so.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Coupon-mad · 8 January 2019 at 12:54AM

Looks good but the template you used, misses out the usual 'landowner' defence point that bargepole uses in his other defences, so add that as well.

And a Statement of truth at the end, and your signature and date.

airborne350 · 8 January 2019 at 1:30PM

Thanks!

Updated:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date: it was not parked on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction to any traffic.

3. The defendant is an observant and reasonable individual who has made the actions only of a reasonable individual in this case.

4. The claimants road markings at the time of the claim must be defined as inadequate and not permissible in forming a binding contract, as at the time of the claim in January 2018 no road markings were present in-line with the highway code to dissuade a reasonable person from parking in the location. Furthermore, Evidence gathered by the claimant in June 2018 highlights that still no road markings existed in the location of the issued PCN. As of January 2019 further evidence has been gathered which clearly highlights the previously inadequate and impermissible markings, as there are now double yellow lines marking the entire area in question.

5. At no point is it made clear at the location of the claim that a vehicle is entering private land, or that this stretch of road is different from the public highway. There was no signage or highway code markings which provide adequate understanding for a reasonable person that they are either on private land or the public highway. The business park which is the scene of they claim is a major through-road and is not marked to ensure motorists are aware of being on private land, away from the public highway at the time of the issued PCN.

6. The claimants signage is ambiguous and provides confusion, as the symbol used by the claimant on their signage is the highway code symbol for parking (A white P on a blue background is used by the claimant), which, to a reasonable person acting reasonably shall usually assume that parking exists to some extent in a location. The defendant has sought examples of parking signs, none of which used by the claimant highlight “no parking” in-line with the highway code guidance and symbology.

7.. At the time of issue, and since with further evidence gathered, there is no signage displayed on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the location. This is misleading the motorist that parking was not permitted in the location in question. Furthermore, and in-line with the photo displayed by the claimant on the original PCN, the signage is unreadable from the location the vehicle was parked.

8. Ambiguity exists consistently in the location, as vehicles apparently exempt from the terms outlined by the claimant continually park in the specific location outlined in the claim. As a result it is not clear to a motorist that the area is in fact bound by the claimants terms, due to the consistent parking by exempt vehicles creating confusion as to the status of the land in question. At the time of issue, and clear in the image, other vehicles are parked in this location and have since continued to do.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

airborne350 · 8 January 2019 at 3:14PM

Furthermore the claimant PCN was complete contradictory in the terms used and claimed the car was parked in a car park, when it was not.

I have drafted this to add, but also would welcome thoughts on whether it is neccesary?

2.4. It is denied, and confirmed by evidence supplied by the claimant that the vehicle was parked in a “car park” despite being claimed on the PCN issued on 24th January 2018 (Ref. xxxxxx), but on a roadway not marked by the highway code. The PCN uses multiple and differing motoring definitions which are inconsistent with the claim outlined, such as “No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways despite previously claiming in the CN that the defendant was parked in a car park.

Claim Form Received (UK CPM) - Update 30/01/2019

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free