Hello Everyone.

I visited a friend on 29/04/17 in the early evening.

Today, 20/05/17 I received a letter from CPM UK Car Park Management that a PCN was issued on 16/05/17 in relation to my visit on 29/04/17.

An operative did not attend to see the apparent parking,

a tennant at the flats takes photos of cars,

sends them to CPM who then issue PCN's

The area is split into two parking areas,

one on the left,

one on the right,

with main entry driveway down the middle.

I have attached 11 photos for you to look at.

The block of flats is owned by a social housing association that has its head office in Newbury, West Berkshire.

As you can see from the photos there is :

1 - no mention of permits being needed on any of the signs,

2 - only a couple of the bays have numbers which I think relates to flat number

3 - there are no designated visitor parking bays

4 - even though its private land, surely visitors are allowed to drive to the site and park up to visit a tennant.

CPM001 - Location of Parking sign nearest to where my car was parked

CPM002 - Close up picture of the sign

CPM003 - The bay my car was parked in when receiving the PCN

CPM004 - A parking bay with a designated flat number

CPM005 - Majority of the bays do not have designated flat numbers, or visitor parking signs

CPM006 - Sign on entry stating it is private parking

CPM007 - Parking sign in right hand side car park

CPM008 - Cars parked in bays with no designated flat numbers, or visitor parking

CPM009 - Vehicles park on the main entry road / pavement

CPM010 - Vehicles park on the main entry road / pavement

CPM011 - Vehicles park on the main entry road / pavement

I read that as its private land,

then the PCN is actually an invoice (contract law),

and that by appealing you are agreeing that the invoice is valid.

I have also emailed DVLA today to see if CPM are legally allowed to get driver vehicle details from DVLA.

But Im bothered by the fact that the "Offence" took place on 29/04,

The offence wasnt recorded at CPM for 17 days,

and then it took fours days for the letter to arrive.

I wanted to know if there is a nice letter to send,

which doesnt accept liability,

but tells CPM they're talking rubbish and Im not paying.

Sorry trying to upload photos, whats the spec needed ?

Thanks

Phillip

to one multipage PDF please

follow the upload

In short,

the notice was sent out too late to create a keeper liability.

Unless the tenant has some permission from the HA they are leaving themselves open to an accusation of harassment and propable breach of their tenancy agreement for preventing the "quiet enjoyment" of the other tenants in their property.

POFA gives 12 days to issue NTK plus 2 days to post it so they are timed out to create a keeper liability.

If they applied later than 12 days after the date of the event they have automatically broken their KADOE contract and a complaint about this should be sent to the DVLA and the ICO.

So, for the moment ignore CPM as they are just making noise and let them waste their money on postage.

With regard to all of the info your have garnered this is a brilliant start to any defence or complaint you may have in the future.

When you have the info from the DVLA and it shows they were late you should get your friend to complain to the HA about the harassment of them and their visitors by CPM and the clown doing their dirty work and if they have approved or instigated this they should be told that they will be in the line of sight for being blasted for this along with the other clowns.

Also, the bit about agreeing that a valid contract exists by writing to them and telling them is doesnt isnt a contractual agreement. Case law on this trick goes back to Victorian times

Thank you for this.

Ive just emailed DVLA asking for a SAR to get the info.

My photos showed that the signs did say about permits being needed.

But the line im using for that is :

"I am writing with regards to your speculative invoice dated 16/05/2017.

I am challenging this “parking charge” as the Registered keeper on the following grounds.

On the 20th May 2017, as the registered keeper of the vehicle I received your Notice to Keeper ref 3......dated 16th may 2017.

This notice refers to a parking event on 29th April 2017, and has therefore not been served within the time limits specified by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

The Keeper therefore cannot be held liable.

Furthermore I understand that signage and layout at the car park is such that the driver was not made sufficiently aware that a permit was required in the particular area where (s)he parked.

I understand that the driver would defend any claim on this and other grounds."

Once DVLA get back to me the fun begins

no SAR needed for DVLA,

they have their own form (or sometimes reply to letters but not phone calls or emails)

they wont answer that either because it is nothing to do with them,

you should stick to

" who has accessed my keeper details, when and what was the claimed purpose as I believe this was a breach of the DPA ofor not having "reasonable cause".

Probably best to try again rather than wait a month for them to tell you that.

In fairness to the DVLA, I emailed them to obtain the details of who accessed my keeper details. I received the reply (via letter) yesterday. Interesting reading when you compare dates!

Hello Guys.

I sent off my letter to CPM as the registered keeper, saying that as CPM had not sent their letter within the time, they had no claim against the registerd keeper.

I received a letter back from them saying nothing about anything in my letter, nothing about Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nothing about they would cancel the alleged debt because they screwed up, nothing except the next stage of appeal.

I ignored their advice on who to appeal to next as this would be an admission by me that I am accepting their invoice and I am willing to pay it.

Ive now received a letter from them titled "Formal Demand".

Ive started trying to get some sort of reply together and wondered if you could give your advice.

The basics so far is :

Your claim and invoice are invalid and unenforceable based on the following Your “Parking Charge Notice” had not been served within the time limits specified by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. The Keeper therefore cannot be held liable.

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

I have now received another letter from your company stating “Formal Demand”. I now consider your communications as harassment and request that you cancel your illegal invoice, and reframe from making any more threats or fraudulent claims for monies.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of further action for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Oh. And they even had the bare faced cheek to expect me to supply details of who was driving the car at the time, if it wasnt me.

no you now ignore them.

dx

formal demand?

how was it dressed, black tie and tails I hope.

Their letter is an admission that they are too stupid to find their own backside with both hands but that isnt going to stop them making unlawful demands.

Let them waste their money sending out pointless letters,

do not respond to this

, if you get as far as a letter before action from either them or one of the brilliant legal minds they employ to screw things up on their behalf then come back here

letters from dca's can be ignored,

as can letters from solicitors telling you that you have ignored the debt collectors letters so owe another zillion pounds in unexplained costs.

Sounds like fun !

I will definately keep you all posted.

Thanks for the wonderful advice,

just needed someone else to help sort my mind out.

had a thought that Id already sent letter saying "Out of time, get stuffed" which would stand up if it went any further.

had a daft idea that not replying afterwards would do more damage than doing nothing.

my take on this is that as it took them 21 days to get the NTK letter on my door mat,

and as they even supplied all the dates in their claim to back up my info,

then if it gets as far as legal action,

then they have shot themselves in their little foot.

thank you to you both for getting back to me.

you are correct in that they have failed to follow procedure

but anyone can sue anyone for anything

and until a judge says there is no case to answer

they have the opportunity to make money out of a claim

and 85% of people dont fight these demands

so they make a lot of money when they dotn deserve to..

Hello Everyone.

The day has finally arrived. I had three letters from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (DRP) 29/08/18, 12/09/17 and 27/09/17, then a letter from Gladstonr Solicitors on 24/10/17.

Ive now received a letter yesterday, dated 21/06/18, from Gladstone Solicitors headed "Letter before claim"

I love the line that reads "We refer you to paragraph 2.1© of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately"

So could you advise on what I need to do now please.

Just in case, PAP = Pre Action Protocol

Thanks

Phillip

Ive drafted a possible reply to Gladstones:

I have received your letter dated 28/06/18 and I am responding as the registered keeper of this vehicle.

You appear to be unaware that CPM UK Car Park Management have not met the requirements of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 within the 'Notice' they sent to me. Without the POFA, they cannot hold me liable for a private parking charge, as registered keeper.

There was no lawful reason for me to respond to their claim, but a letter was sent on 16 May 2017 on Recorded Letter ref KF709831486GB stating that they had no claim.

Your client has no cause of action. Under the provisions of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the notice to keeper must be delivered not later than 14 days after the date that the vehicle was parked. A notice sent by post under the act, is presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after which it was posted.

For the purpose of the act working days mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday. The requirements of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 have not been met by CPM UK Car Park Management, therefore I cannot be held liable for the parking charge as the registered keeper.

I presume reading your letter before claim; you have not had sight of the documents provided to me by CPM UK Car Park Management, as you would be aware that the notice to keeper was not delivered within the relevant timeframe.

The driver has not been identified and I am prepared to sign a witness statement confirming this as a true fact. I am under no obligation to name the driver, nor can the old irrelevant 'Elliot v Loake' apply.

So, I wish to know on what basis your client is trying to hold me liable. Your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper so it seems to me; they have no cause of action in any case.

I look forward to your response shortly.

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

Would the above letter be the thing to send ?

Thanks

Phillip

problem is with parking at your home it is reasonable to assume that it was you so attack it from a different angle.

Dear sirs,

your client know that there is no cause for action against me, they are claiming for a breach of contract that does not and cannot exist, was never offered by way of signage and in short they dont have a hope in hell in making a successful claim.

However, I'm sure that as the worlds greatest authority on parking matters you are quite happy to encourage them to waste their money on a wild goose chase so at least let them know that they dont stand a chance in hell of getting a penny and will suffer a claim for costs and a counterclaim for breach of the DPA as they have made untrue claims to obtain my keeper details.

I'm sure that they will be delighted to know that they are yet another company to have joined the cast of "You've Been Gladstoned", the online comedy programme enjoyed by thousands.

Dont be polite and dont give them too much detail of what cards you hold. They know that their clients are stupid, they must be or they wouldnt be IPC members.

Hi ericsbrother.

The address that the pcn was issued wasnt my home address. Plus the only breach of dpa was not getting the letter on my door mat within the allotted time.

Taking the last point first,

that is completely wrong,

you haven't read other posts to get up to speed on these things,

it is about whether they had the right at the time to obtain your keeper details from the DVLA for the reason they are allowed to access the database.

Now when they fail to have a contractual relationship with the driver or keeper as in this case they cant just get your details and then issue a speculative invoice in the hope that they can bluff their way through the process

, they are supposed to only get the info after they have determined whether there is a cause for doing so and there isnt. It is this that is the breach of the DPA, lying on a electronic form.

all of that has nothing to do with the POFA, which is why they have failed to create a keeper liability.

They are 2 separate matters.

Now the lack of keeper liability is one of the weaker arguments to use at this stage as there may still be judges who havent met Gaddys yet and so havent read the Act because they havent had a cause to save that for if they do chance their arm.

in the meanwhile send something like my suggestion as it doesnt give anything away as already said.

Send something polite and detailed and they will see what the limits of your knowledge are and be likely to issue a claim and word it to suit what you have already said so tell them they are timed out and they will claim you are the driver and they knew this all along (not true but they dont let the truth shackle them)

another thing, if the address the vehicle was registered to at the time was wrong you may well find they try and get a backdoor CCJ by deliberately writing to the old address.

Im sorry but you're confusing me here.

You've previously stated above when I first posted that

"In short, the notice was sent out too late to create a keeper liability."

now you are saying something completely different.

I sent my first and only letter to CPM telling them they were out of time, and now its gone to letter before claim.

So doesnt that fact that the company has failed to do things within the time limits mean that the keeper has no liability.

Plus there is the photographs showing poor signage and parking bays with no clear white lines showing what is a bay, and what isnt.

Most blocks of flats have bays with numbers, these numbers relate to the flat number, bay 1 for flat 1 etc

. Then there is visitor bays cleary marked as visitor bays and then disabled bays.

So how about making a case on the following :

1 - the pcn wasnt issued within time

2 - the bay markings and signage make the private car park unenforceable.

look,

you are sending a reply to what is a threatening letter

I am suggesting that you dont waste all your ammunition on this as they may then use what they know about the event to invent a different claim.

My suggested reply avoids the detail of certain killer information because you are saving that for when they actually start civil proceedings

At this stage they wont take any notice of it and try their luck by claiming that they know you were the driver because they have super powers.

do not try and reason with them,

do not explain anything to them,

at present they are just taking money for looking tough,

make them tell their client that you are up for a fight but keep the information about weapons and tactics to a minimum.

They lose loads of defended claims and seem to ony win the walkovers.

that is why I also suggested reading a load of threads on gladstones and their rubbish filing of claims.

This letter may not do the trick and we dont want to see you backed into a corner over this if it doesnt.

However telling them that you have several big sticks without revealing any of them may work as it often does.

accept the fact they are unreasonable,

not above cheating the system,

abusing the courts processes and telling lies.

It is not a meeting of equals as you want,

like most people to see that decency and justice prevail.

That wont happen unless you make it so.

So again I suggest that you send the rude letter telling them their clients are stuffed but avoiding some important detail you will clobber them with later id they still persist.

Stick with just the one fact and they will try and claim all sorts of other precedents that dont actually apply but you will then have to do more homework to overcome as CPM will believe the bull they are being fed by Gladdys even if no-one else does

I appreciate what you are saying, I really do, please believe that.

But let them state rubbish all they like. I have to be seen to be trying to sort this out and stating the facts rather than ignoring. Ignoring makes me look guilt, so let them ramble on all they like.

They didnt issue the pcn in time so dont have a claim.

I believe in the adage that outside of court they may rule, but let them take me to court because its then that I will show that they were just threatening chasing money they have no right to have.

They are hoping I cough up now and that Im scared of going to court.

They believe that Im thinking

"These are solicitors so must know what they are talking about", and that Im going to pay.

Im going to send a letter including your bit as well and then let them threaten all they like.

Ill then wait for the court papers and then fight it.

There is two possible outcomes,

1 they will go die a horrible death and leave us all alone, or

2 take me to court and fail.

Let them take me to court and make up all the crap they like, I have the papertrail and will use their own crap to screw them over.

I will make them look desperate and that they are fraudulently trying to obtain money from me by lying and making up stuff. Sometimes keeping it simple and to the point can help a long way. Let them change anything I have already said.

The simple truth is that the pcn wasnt issued correctly and the bays are unenforceable.

There is also the other issue of the tenant who has a financial gain for photographing as many cars as he can, as he gets 10 pounds per ticket paid.

Id even be happy to get witness statements from carers who have been seen going into the flats and then getting tickets.

Yes Im going to have to put some work into this as Gladstones dont want to lose face.

But they will if I win the case and then sue them, and their client, for damages and harassment and anything else, which will then put put online all over the place.

Let them do all the dirty tactics they like, its more ammo for me.

Follow EB's advice

Dont expand yet!!!

Let me put it another way and tell you why you shouldn't send too much information too early.

The more you say now, the less room you'll have for manoeuvre letter on if it gets that far.

The more information you give the likes of the PPC and Gladrags now, they will tailor their claim to take account of absolutely anything that you've already said to try and convince/bamboozle any Judge in to thinking that they are right and that you have to pay up.

Keep your powder dry and choose your battles. Ultimately it's all about winning the war and individual battles aren't important

You will get nowhere if you try and sue them for harassment.

I am probably the only person on this forum who has sued a parking co for harassment and in my case judgement was reserved for a year to see what else they did after I beat off their claim.

The threshold is very high and you wont be able to sue Gladdys ayways as they ONLY do what their clients tell them to ( according to every bent solicitor ever taken to task).

Our advise about keeping it simple and vague is to try and show you arent hiding your head in the sand and are willing to go the distance if you have to and beating them in court will be a damned sight easier if they dont know everything you know.

For example the sending out the NTK too late to create a keeper liability is a killer blow at court but means nothing until you get to that stage,

them with something else now and they will have to think whether they want to risk the venture.

rely entirely on one fact and they will try their stock response and hope that the judge has been living on a different planet for the last 2 years and that you have fouled up your defence by sticking to the one point

( they will try and get anything else you say ruled as inadmissible if you are precise in your assertions now so try and avoid dead end arguments evn if they are right.

Thanks Ericsbrother, now it all makes sense.

Maybe I was being stupid in thinking courts were all about being honest and that lawyers etc were supposed to be honest and trustworthy. Now thats probably the funniest / daftest comment you are probably going to hear.

What are you planning to do, Darwin?

HB

Im going to send the letter ericsbrother said to do.

Print it tonight and send it recorded so they cant say they never received it,

post it up here 1st

no need for recorded

just use free POP at the counter and a 1st class stamp/