Author Topic: UK-CPM - No permit (may have fallen from windscreen) - Grantham House, Leatherhead  (Read 916 times)

0 Members and 54 Guests are viewing this topic.

I have a parking permit for my gym, but have received a PCN saying the car was parked without one on display. It may possibly have fallen from the windscreen during the time it was parked.

PCN and parking signage attached below.

Any advice on if there is a way out of this one would be gratefully received. Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: November 08, 2024, 11:35:06 am by PeteW »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Go onto CPM's appeals site and see what photos they have - the two photos on the PCN don't even seem to show the car windscreen?

Before we get onto any appeals etc. you should speak to the gym manager and ask them to intervene. If they're not cooperative you might want to politely point out that you're unlikely to renew your membership, or advise others to do the same, if you're at risk of getting parking charges in their car park.

Thanks. I will speak to the gym management.

There were additional photos including the windscreen which I have attached below.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

That sign only has a premium rate phone number.

An operator that only provides a premium rate phone number for contact on a contractual terms sign fails to comply with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013:

Regulation 41 stipulates that traders cannot charge consumers more than the basic rate for telephone calls when contacting them about an existing contract. If the operator’s sign only displays a premium rate number, it can be argued that they fail to comply with this regulation, particularly when drivers need to contact them for inquiries or issues related to the parking terms.

Consumer Rights Act 2015:

• Section 62 requires that contract terms be fair and not create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. Only offering a premium rate phone number can be seen as an unfair term, creating an unreasonable barrier to obtaining information or raising concerns.

• Section 68 emphasises that terms must be transparent. This means they should be expressed in plain, intelligible language and presented in a way that consumers can understand. If only a premium rate number is provided, it may not meet the requirement of transparency, especially if it imposes an unexpected cost on consumers simply for making contact.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

That sign only has a premium rate phone number.

Thanks b789, that's a really good spot!

Having done some searches, it looks like most have appealed based on the premium rate number being on the PCN, rather than on the signage. For clarity, the PCN itself includes at 0345 number which I believe is standard-rate, so I'm not sure whether previous cases such as Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council would apply in this case?

Is the signage sufficient grounds for dismissing the claim? Would I simply state what you have said and say that the contract is therefore not valid and no charge is due?

Many thanks for your assistance.

No appeal is going to succeed. Waste as much effort as you like on it but don't get your hopes up. This will be decided in court if they don't discontinue or have any claim thrown out before a hearing.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

I would do what you can to get the gym to intervene. It is the path that involves by far the least effort!