Author Topic: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement  (Read 91 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« on: February 04, 2025, 05:32:17 pm »
Registered Keeper received a PC Reminder Notice when no original notice was ever received. RK responded on 12/12. PUC issued final demand on 23/12. RK issued another letter on 06/01. CUP issued the attached notice pursue original charge on 09/01. RK disputes it ever received any original letter and believes CUP is confusing it with another notice e it issued to RK. How does RK respond now, or does nothing?

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2025, 06:03:03 pm »
The only document that we need to see is the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you received.That is the one that is missing.

The reminders and final demands are useless to us. So, please show the original (both sides) and make sure that all dates and time are visible.

I note in their response to your initial appeal that you made some reference to PoFA and they have confirmed that they  are not relying on PoFA to hold you liable as the Keeper. Does that mean that you admitted to being the driver, inadvertently or otherwise? Did you use language that dobs you in the mire as the Keeper because of wording such as "I did this or that" instead of referring to the driver in the third person such as "the driver did this or that"?

They have several violations of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Without having seen the original (most important) NtK, but reading through their response to your appeal, they admit that they did not send a notice that complied with the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable. However, in their reminder notice, they quite clearly say that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the Registered Keeper. That is an outright lie and a breach of the law.

Before we can move forward with this, we need to see the original NtK with all dates and times visible and, is possible exactly what you put in your original appeal to CUP.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2025, 07:13:28 pm »
As I said there is no original NtK. Never received so cannot attach. They CUP sent one in respect of another alleged infringement. I took your advice on that one at the time and wrote a letter along the lines you suggested. Adapting the wording of that to this one i sent them the attached letter which does not identify who was driving or anything else i believe. There is only one page. I responded twice in largely the same vein. The second page was just the signature.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2025, 07:24:30 pm »
For future reference, don't bother with "registered mail". All you need to prove is that a letter was sent is a free Certificate of Posting from any Post Office. Even better is sending the letter as a PDF attachment to an email as that is instant delivery and has proof too.

Your appeal is dated 6th January 2025, yet their response to your appeal states that it was received on the 4th January 2025. Any explanation for this discrepancy?

You mention in the letter that you "already responded" on 12th December 2024. What was in that "response"?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2025, 07:30:05 pm »
My first letter of appeal was the 12th December correct. I overwrote that when I sent the orher letter of 6th January in largely the same wording.

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2025, 07:43:10 pm »
Actually here is a copy of the original letter we sent back to CUP on the 12th December pointing out that it was issued as a reminder when that it is impossible when no original was ever received.

As we had received another original NtK from them with a different PCN no that you already advised us on last year, it would have been impossible for me to miss it as I work from home largely, (if indeed RM delivered it.)

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2025, 07:49:47 pm »
The other original NtK issued under a separate PCN that you already advised me on is now attached, front and back for your reference,  just in case that assists you.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2025, 10:45:02 am »
OK. The first PCN was definitely not PoFA compliant. You say you never received the original NtK for the second PCN. However, you have already appealed it and even sent a second appeal.

We need to establish a timeline that makes sense before we proceed.

5th November 2024: Date of alleged contravention
?? November 2024: Issue date of issue of original NtK (Possibly 8th November 2024)
9th December 2024: Issue date of first PCN reminder
12th December 2024: First appeal to CUP
23rd December 2024: Issue date of final demand notice
6th January 2025: Second appeal to CUP
9th January 2025: Date of CUP appeal response referring to appeal received on 4th January 2025 stating that they are not relying on PoFA

What date did your first appeal get delivered (signed for) to CUP?
What date did your second appeal to CUP get delivered (signed for) to CUP?

What is confusing me is the discrepancies about dates of appeal receipts. Also, if the original NtK was "issued" on 8th November for an alleged contravention on 5th November, then as far as dates are concerned, they are PoFA compliant. We would have to see the actual NtK to be able to see if there are any other issues with PoFA compliance. However, their admission in the appeal rejection that they are not relying on PoFA is damning for them.

I suggest that you submit a formal complaint to CUP that you never received the original NtK and that you require a copy of that NtK and evidence of it having been sent either by way of a "Proof of Posting Certificate" or a delivery receipt.

You still have a valid POPLA code for appealing until 9th January, so just keep that in reserve for a day or two.

You send the following as a PDF attachment in an email to info@cupenforcement.com and you CC in yourself. DO NOT use registered mail to do this!!! by sending it by email you have evidence of sending and receipt. PPSCoP section 11.3 requires that a complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt:

Quote
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]

[Email Address]

[Date]

Close Unit Protection (C.U.P)
Office 9, Dalton House
60 Windsor Avenue
London
SW19 2RR

By email to: info@cupenforcement.com

Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for Evidence of Notice to Keeper (NtK) Sent by Post

Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: 34141
Vehicle Registration: BN02 FUG
Date of Alleged Contravention: 5th November 2024
Location: 481 Green Lanes


Dear CUP Enforcement Complaints Team,

I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and did not receive any initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) for this charge. I first became aware of the PCN upon receipt of a reminder issued on 9th December 2024.

In your appeal rejection letter dated 9th January 2025, you confirmed that the PCN was issued as a Non-PoFA Notice and referenced the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) in this regard. However, I require CUP Enforcement to provide specific evidence that the original NtK was actually sent by post and not merely generated.

The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section 8.1.2, explicitly states:

A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, ‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

Given that I never received the original NtK, I now formally require CUP Enforcement to provide:

1. A copy of the original NtK issued for this charge.

2. Documentary evidence confirming the actual date of posting, including proof from any third-party mail provider (such as a Mail Consolidator) that the NtK was physically placed into the postal system.

3. A clear explanation of the method of postage used (e.g. Royal Mail first-class, bulk mail, etc.).

Failure to provide satisfactory evidence that the NtK was correctly posted and presumed delivered will be treated as a fundamental failure of your processes and a breach of the PPSCoP.

I expect this formal complaint to be responded to within 14 days as mandated by the PPSCoP section 11.3. I will not hesitate to escalate my complaint to the BPA. Additionally, I will bring this to the attention of any relevant regulatory bodies overseeing CUP Enforcement's conduct.

Please treat this as a formal complaint under your complaints procedure. I expect a response addressing the specific concerns raised, rather than a generic reiteration of the parking charge validity.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2025, 04:02:20 pm »
Right. We received a PCN NtK 35325 on 04/12 . Notice dated 02/12, iro alleged contrvention 25/10.

RK sought your advice on this forum and wrote to CUP on 6th December in accordance with your advice that they were out of time. Copy below. They don't seem to be pursuing this anymore.

On 12/12 I received a PC Reminder Notice which we assumed initially was iro 35325. When I looked at it more carefully I saw that the PCN was #34141 , notice date 09/12 and alleged contravention date was 05/11 .

I drafted a letter that day 12/12 and mailed it the next again saying out of time and never received the original NtK. My suspicion is/was that they cocked up the two PCNs and sent a reminder in respect of the wrong one.

How can an alleged contravention of 05/11 have a PCN# 34141, when the NtK for 35325 with an alleged contravention date of 25/10 , so almost 2 weeks after have generated a lower PCN no. 34141 ? It's doesn't make sense to me.

They never issued an original NOTICE TO Keeper dated 08/11 as they claim. The fact that I have dealt with 35325 promptly and diligently is good circumstantial evidence to show I wouldn't have just sat on it if indeed I'd received it, surely.

They sent back a final demand dated 23/12 which i again responded to on 06/01/25.

I am now going to pdf across the formal challenge you kindly drafted and let's hope that that works. Thank you again

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Karma: +73/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2025, 04:29:38 pm »
How can an alleged contravention of 05/11 have a PCN# 34141, when the NtK for 35325 with an alleged contravention date of 25/10 , so almost 2 weeks after have generated a lower PCN no. 34141 ? It's doesn't make sense to me.
Don't get fixated on this as there's a good chance it's a red herring - there's no guarantee that their reference numbers are sequential (they've definitely issued more than 35,000 PCNs - based on DVLA data they've issued over 40,000 just since 2022).

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2025, 05:05:45 pm »
Ok. Thanks. I haven't raised it in my latest formal complaint so let's see what they say to that first. Appreciate your input.

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2025, 02:34:29 pm »
So RK just received this final demand dated 06/02 on 07/02 (today).

They say POPLA appeal process is no longer available.

I did however appeal on 05/02 exactly as you advised by pdf attachment to an email that evening of the 5th.

Wording exactly as you instructed. Presumably their letter of 6th crossed with my appeal by email of the 5th.

I presume there that RK appealed within time to preserve the appeal ? Pls advise.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2025, 05:50:11 pm »
But that is not a response to the formal complaint. It is just a reminder letter. Ignore that. Wait for the response to the formal complaint.

You have not yet submitted a POPLA appeal. Go to the POPLA website. The code should be valid until the 9th February. Just use the code to send the following appeal to POPLA: (read it carefully and edit the necessary parts, especially section #5)

Quote
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: 34141
Vehicle Registration: BN02 FUG
Date of Alleged Contravention: 5th November 2024
Location: 481 Green Lanes

Grounds for Appeal:

1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has explicitly stated they are not relying on PoFA
2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence Provided
3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting
4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify the Driver
5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)
6. No Landholder Authority

1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has explicitly stated they are not relying on PoFA

CUP Enforcement has confirmed in their appeal rejection letter dated 9th January 2025 that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the Registered Keeper liable.

Since the alleged contravention occurred on 5th November 2024, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) would have needed to comply with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to establish Keeper liability. As CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying on PoFA, they have no legal basis to hold me, the Keeper, liable.

It is well established by POPLA and case law that in the absence of PoFA compliance, only the driver can be held liable for a private parking charge. I am the Registered Keeper and at no point have I been identified as the driver. Therefore, as Keeper, I cannot be held liable, and the charge must be cancelled.

POPLA must uphold this appeal on this basis alone.

2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence Provided

I never received an initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) from CUP Enforcement. The first correspondence I received was a reminder dated 9th December 2024.

I submitted a formal complaint to CUP Enforcement, requesting:

• A copy of the original NtK
• Documentary proof of the actual posting date
• Confirmation of the postage method

To date, CUP Enforcement has not responded to this complaint. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2 states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting and that a notice is presumed delivered only if it was correctly posted by a third-party mail provider (e.g., Royal Mail, Mail Consolidator, etc.).

Since no NtK was ever received, and CUP has failed to provide any proof that it was actually posted, they cannot enforce this charge against the Keeper.

3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting

CUP Enforcement has not provided any evidence that the original NtK was ever sent. According to PPSCoP Section 8.1.2, the burden of proof is on CUP Enforcement to show that the NtK was:

• Physically placed into the postal system, not merely generated
• Sent via a traceable method (e.g., Royal Mail, bulk mail provider)
• Presumed delivered under the correct legal timeframe

Without proof of posting, no presumption of delivery can be made. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and the charge is therefore invalid.

4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify the Driver

As the Registered Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Given that CUP Enforcement has chosen not to use PoFA, they can only pursue the driver. Since they have no evidence of who was driving, the charge is unenforceable.

POPLA has ruled in numerous appeals that in the absence of PoFA compliance, the Keeper cannot be assumed or inferred to be the driver. There is persuasive case law that also confirms that there can be no presumption of liability.

Since I have not identified the driver and CUP Enforcement has no means to do so, they have no lawful claim against me.

5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)

(Include this section if you believe the signage was unclear, misleading, or inadequate. If the signage was small, poorly positioned, or lacked clear terms, state that it fails the BPA/IPC requirements on signage clarity and transparency.)

If the signage fails to clearly communicate contractual terms, then any alleged contract is unenforceable. CUP Enforcement must prove that:

• The signage was clearly visible and legible from the parking location
• The terms were unambiguous and prominently displayed
• The driver had a reasonable opportunity to review the terms before entering into any agreement

Without such proof, the alleged contract is not valid, and the charge must be cancelled.

6. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Conclusion – The Parking Charge Must Be Cancelled

• CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying on PoFA, meaning I, as the Registered Keeper, cannot be held liable.
• The original NtK was never received, and no evidence of posting has been provided.
• The BPA/IPC PPSCoP requires operators to provide proof of actual postal dispatch, which CUP has failed to do.
• The Keeper is under no obligation to name the driver, and CUP cannot assume liability.
• The signage (if applicable) is unclear and does not form a valid contract.
• The operator does not have a valid contract with the landholder that authorises them to issue PCNs at this location.

Given the overwhelming evidence that the charge is legally unenforceable, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and orders the cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2025, 05:52:37 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

BenD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2025, 07:19:54 pm »
I have this evening 07/02 submitted my POPLA appeal, thanks you again. You've been wonderful