Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Mark_Fletch13 on August 22, 2024, 11:24:36 pm
-
Good result... Misrepresentation of their authority is a fairly serious issue, so they're probably scrambling to change that sign ASAP, and cancelling any charges where the appellant mentions it!
If it's nearby to you, keep an eye out and see if they do change it.
-
Thank you wholeheartedly to all those who have assisted with this case over the last couple of weeks.
I can confirm CPM have cancelled the charge they issued me as a result of the information this forum kindly provided.
I have copied and pasted their email below for reference and for others in need of help.
Many thanks for this successful outcome.
………………..………………..………………..
“ We write in response to your email dated 23rd August 2024.
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was observed parked at 45-47 South Street, Bishops Stortford on 3rd July 2024 without displaying a valid permit.
The vehicle was observed between the times of 15:17 and 15:20.
The signage states “A valid UK CPM permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times” and “If unsure please seek further advice from CPM or refrain from parking.”
The Notice to Keeper letter advised the Incident Time and Date of 15:20 03/07/2024.
The First Reminder letter states the Issued Date of 6th July 2024 and the Issued Time of 02:48.
Please note, the Issued Date and Time is the date the Notice to Keeper letter was issued to you. We are not stating the vehicle was parked on 6th July 2024 at 02:48. As such, this would not invalidate the issuance of the PCN.
Upon receiving your complaint, we can confirm that we have contacted our dedicated Account Manager for this location to undertake a review of the signage on site. Furthermore, we have requested the wording “Penalty Charge” to be changed to “Parking Charge”.
Please accept our sincere apologies for this error.
Due to your evidence of the entrance sign, we have on this occasion, requested the PCN to be closed at DRPL and we will cancel the PCN, as a gesture of goodwill.
As set out above, our position remains that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.
We thank you for contacting us and trust the above response addresses your queries. Please note, any further correspondence received from you will be logged but may not be responded to.
We are members of the International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS).
The IPC is a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and has a Code of Practice and an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) that allows a Motorist access to an independent adjudication process on the lawfulness of Parking Charges issued by their members. An important condition of being an AOS member is that operators must adhere to The Code.
If you are not content with the response, we have provided you with, you can refer this to the IPC who will investigate and provide you with a response.
Yours faithfully,
Jess Tester
Complaints Executive
UK Car Park Management Ltd”
………………..………………..………………..
-
If the address at the time they issued the PCN is the old address, they cannot go back to the DVLA for a second bite. They can only apply for the keeper data once.
Updating your V5C later, does not change the address they have on file for service of documents. As long as you have informed them of your current address for service and instructed them to ERASE your old address, you should be OK. The word ERASE is highlighted for a reason and must be used in any data rectification notice you send them
-
That’s a good point actually, I moved address around that time so have informed them now of that info. Although my new address is on my new V5C and DVLA are aware.
Thanks
-
Another point to be aware of, given that, as b789 has said, these things can drag on - if you move at any point before the 6 year period has expired, write to them to provide your new address. This avoids what we sometimes see happening, where a claim is issued, but goes to an old address, leading to a default judgement.
-
That’s all understood thank you for your advice. I’d assumed they were the a clamping outfit in days past but didn’t know. Good to have that knowledge to know who I’m dealing with.
Thanks again for your help. If I hear back I’ll re-activate this thread.
Regards
-
The only way this "affair" will be resolved is if it goes to the ultimate dispute resolution service... the small claims track in the county court. CPM are a nasty little bunch of ex-clampers who are litigious but easily beaten.
You can try and "prompt" them but the ball is in their court for now.
As you are past any appeal stage, all you can do is wait and see if/when they decide to progress this further. They may never bother or they can simply wait for up to 6 years from the date of the event to file claim.
Should they decide to file a claim, you have several arguments you can use in any defence but but to cross that bridge when you come to it.
-
Good morning,
It’s been just under two weeks since my last email to CPM stating their contraventions add discussed above. I have now allowed their deadline to pay them expire (26th August) and haven’t heard back from them either via post or email.
I’d like to have this whole affair resolved, would it be negative to my case to prompt them at this point or are they likely to take this long to make a decision to escalate further?
Thank you in advance.
-
The photo is from 22/08/24 (I.e.
Thursday just gone)
-
No ATA or AOS roundels either. Do we know the date of the photo?
-
Is there any evidence that their sign says “Penalty Notice” on it?
(https://i.imgur.com/5LT8KKt.jpeg)
-
Is there any evidence that their sign says “Penalty Notice” on it?
-
Thanks,
The initial response I got from them was “ Please be advised we issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) not penalty charge”
I replied quoting the references as per previous post and have yet to hear back from them. Will report back with their response when they return from their bank holiday break!
Cheers
-
Therefore as far as I conclude the transitional period is not applicable as the same statement appears in both issued documents.
Even better. The reason I would still suggest referencing both, is to prevent a fob-off answer of "The signs don't need to comply with the new code yet". You can make the point that they weren't compliant with the old code, either.
-
Thanks for the information.
As far as I can tell from code of practice document issued 27th June 2024, and also the now superseded issue 7th February 2022, both documents state the following:
“Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applied must:
(i) be clear unambiguous and not use the words “penalty” or “fine” unless there is a statutory requirement to do so”.
Therefore as far as I conclude the transitional period is not applicable as the same statement appears in both issued documents.
If I’m wrong please let me know.
(Also the double yellow lines do indeed have dashes on them which I assume then prevents loading on the pavement).
-
As this has occurred after the new Joint Code of Practice (CoP) was published, you can refer to that for breaches. In particular, if there is any mention or suggestion of a “penalty” either on their signs or their PCN, they are in breach of section 3.1.3(i).
I'd refer to both the new and old CoPs, as there's a transition period for signage at existing sites.
-
You must get out of your mind that any “offence” has been committed. You have not received any “penalty” or “fine”. CPM are not an “authority” of any kind. They are an unregulated private parking company and have sent the keeper a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
Under no circumstances communicate with the debt collectors. They are irrelevant and not a party to any alleged breach of contract by the driver. You can safely ignore any and all debt collection letters.
As this has occurred after the new Joint Code of Practice (CoP) was published, you can refer to that for breaches. In particular, if there is any mention or suggestion of a “penalty” either on their signs or their PCN, they are in breach of section 3.1.3(i).
Also, if the sign mentions the word “penalty” they are liable to a Level 4 sanction from their ATA for “deliberate misrepresentation of authority”.
BPA/IPC Joint Code of Practice (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf)
OP, you also need to understand the meaning of double yellow lines on public roads. As long as the kerb does not have yellow “blips” on them, the driver is allowed to stop for loading and unloading and no offence is being committed. A review of the Highway Code may be in order.
-
There are two times quoted, sorry forgot to say that on my last reply.
The first letter says 15:20 (which seems logical, although I cannot verify this time as I didn’t record it myself), the second letter says 02:48 which seems illogical, they used the same photo and used two different times.
-
Okay I have replied to them and not responded to the debt collector company. I will re-post with an outcome so others can learn from this experience. Thank you for your help, anything else in the meantime that may be of help please let me know.
(Would you recommend to keep the ‘permit holders only’ argument in the event of a court case or add that to my initial response to CPM which I have now sent?)
Thanks
-
Errors on any subsequent reminder letters are less likely to be of use, is it right on the original notice?
I wouldn't copy the debt collectors in, they are only interested in payment.
If it goes to court, they will probably add on a hearing fee of £35, and legal costs of £50. The £70 added on as a debt collection fee can usually be successfully challenged as double recovery (the £100 charge is supposed to include their costs of recovering the charge), so a loss in court would likely be just over £200.
One angle of defence would also be that no contract was formed, as the signage is forbidding. As it is a 'Permit Holders Only' car park, they are only offering parking to permit holders. There is no consideration offered to non permit holders, and without an offer to park there can be no contract. Such arguments should work, but anecdotally the results can be mixed.
-
Thank you I will certainly send the complaint to them that you mentioned. Should I also copy in the debt recovery company to the email?
Also is there any way to use the date and time inconsistencies in the same complaint email or another channel to work against them?
Lastly if they decide they want to go to courts is the maximum penalty I’d likely see far in excess of the £170 they are now asking of me.
Thank you
-
As this has now reached the debt collector stage, it is now a case of waiting to see if they decide to take you to court.
In the meantime, I'd send a complaint to CPM about that sign at the entrance - they absolutely should not be claiming that there is a £100 "penalty" charge - these are parking charges, and by using the word "penalty", they are falsely implying they have powers they do not, in breach of 25.3 of the IPC Code of Practice (https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf). This isn't necessarily grounds for the charge to be cancelled, but a complaint about this might attract attention they are keen to avoid.
-
Good evening,
I received a penalty notice from CPM, UK Car Park Management dated 6th July in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire (for a contravention on 3rd July at “15:20”).
Essentially I was moving into a new apartment and there is no parking anywhere near it, only double yellow lines down the entire street, except for a private car park opposite the apartments. Noticing that there wasn’t a complex camera structure around the car park I thought I would be fine for five minutes moving a couple of boxes to the apartment.
Lo and behold when I returned to my car, I saw a man dressed in black civilian clothes loitering around where my car was, and upon approaching him he walked off. I assumed as there wasn’t a physical ticket (and no camera pointed at the car, I was okay). However a letter came through demanding £100 for the contravention within 28 days (or a reduced £60 if paid within 14 days). The reason for the ticket stated was for “not displaying a valid permit”.
The photos enclosed of my car were taken physically but the “patroller” (not mounted cameras). They do not have an office that I’m aware of in the vicinity and he clearly waited for me to leave before issuing the ‘penalty’.
I ignored the first letter, and received a second on 25th July 2024, again from CPM, UK Car Park Management, stating that now I owe £100, and if I do nothing this will increase to £170 and trigger them to contact a debt collector. This letter was titled “Final chance before action”. (I note the date and time of the alleged offence are stated as different to the first letter, this time the time is stated as “02:48”).
The third letter came on 12th July 2024 from Debt Recovery Plus stating that I now must pay £170 or if I do nothing, they will “inform their legal team, share contact evidence, advise legal action starts” and that I am making an “intent not to pay”.
Can anyone tell me how to proceed with this and if I have any grounds to dispute the penalty, or if they have done anything incorrectly (like the time of the alleged offence which is inconsistent between letters) which would allow me to avoid lying this excessive private car park penalty.
The the car park spaces around the edge of the car park are “reserved” for ‘Portland Place’, ‘Danescroft Limited’ ‘Clarion’, ‘St Claire hospice’, ‘riverside house’ and some just ‘reserved parking’ - are all nearby offices or businesses as far as I can make out. I parked in the central area (spot 9 I believe) which didn’t have any plackards specifically on the space.
I have included images for reference of the letters received and subsequently the car park itself.
https://imgur.com/a/cpm-patrol-no-permit-displayed-bishop-s-stortford-fqYivqv