Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket ***Dismissed again with costs***

[shamrocker]

Didn't their appeal response state that the breach was "not parking within the confines of a marked bay", or words to that effect? They also mention something about yellow lines, which I failed to understand (unless it was to explain their logic behind a lack of signage).They don't appear to know what they're trying to pin you on though - seems a bit made up as they go along.

 

Do you have any pics of the bay and how the vehicles are positioned when parked as you do?

 

It would be interesting to see a map of the area they have an agreement to manage. I'd be surprised if it extends within the footprint of the building, essentially where your parking space is positioned.

 

Even if it does cover that area, the signage prevents you from parking in your own space, as your space is not "a marked bay". Yet they contradict that by stating that double parking isn't allowed, which in so doing, legitimises the position you parked as a bonafide parking space (despite not being marked).

 

Also, the signs are situated on the opposite side of the car park, next to what appear to be "marked bays" - therefore, you could reasonably argue that the parking terms apply to those spaces only. No signs on the entrance would support that argument, as how else can it be determined that the same terms apply to areas of the land other than where those signs are situated?

 

You'd have a field day if these chancers go the court route.

[ericsbrother]

they only get one bite of the cherry so their changing of the story as to why they are placing litter on your vehicle wont get them anywhere.

 

I agree with shamrocker though, pictures are necessary for the next stages so get them taken of the entrance to the land from

the public highway,

your parking space,

preferably with as many vehicles as you can cram onto it and

the signage that is in the vicinity,

noting any signs that are different in content to those at the entrance.

 

Also get some piccies of the lone ranger and his vehicle, ideally as he goes about his "work".

 

If they do want to try their luck in court it will be interesting to see if they are happy that their agent is identified and produce a witness statement.

I bet we know the answer to that already and that will work in your favour

 

BTW,

their bod can only enforce CPM's terms so the bit in your lease agreement about only 1 vehicle has nothing to do with him.

Your LL is the only one to enforce the other terms and it always goes bad for any parking co that claims agency over all matters

Edited December 31, 2018 by dx100uk
merge/tidy

[harni]

Their lone rangers is one of the ones replying to the appeals.

They are a tiny business with two directors both of which have been identified as attending site and evidenced putting tickets on our vehicles

 

which in my eyes, is even more evidence to the fact they have a interest in issuing as many tickets as possible using bully boy tactics.

It could also be because the business has no money whatsoever,

an outstanding CCJ against them and an absolutely appalling credit score.

 

Ive attached images. Sorry for the poor quality!

 

It would be interesting to see a map of the area they have an agreement to manage. I'd be surprised if it extends within the footprint of the building, essentially where your parking space is positioned.

 

Even if it does cover that area, the signage prevents you from parking in your own space, as your space is not "a marked bay". Yet they contradict that by stating that double parking isn't allowed, which in so doing, legitimises the position you parked as a bonafide parking space (despite not being marked).

 

Also, the signs are situated on the opposite side of the car park, next to what appear to be "marked bays" - therefore, you could reasonably argue that the parking terms apply to those spaces only. No signs on the entrance would support that argument, as how else can it be determined that the same terms apply to areas of the land other than where those signs are situated?

 

You'd have a field day if these chancers go the court route.

 

Ask and Ye shall receive!

This is something they sent me as part of their appeal rejection attached in post 4

 

The only bit i have changed is the green block which highlights our space.

Everything else they drew on so you're correct, the area they cover does not cover our spaces

Binder1.pdf

Edited December 31, 2018 by dx100uk
pdf merge and post merge

[shamrocker]

That's interesting. Have you advised them that your vehicles were not parked nor ticketed within the area they've identified as being under their management, and subject to the terms they're trying to enforce upon you?

[harni]

Yep. Their response was along the lines of the vehicle was overhanging into the red marked area. If this were the case, it would have been by no more than 3-4 inches

[brassnecked]

I reckon they are very silly if they try court.

[shamrocker]

If this were the case...

 

Yes, IF. It's for them to support that claim. Have they?

 

It also means that parking in that area is not authorised - so I cannot see how any contract can be created on that basis, as you have not parked under the terms of their signage, but on your own separate space. Perhaps EB can advise better.

 

Have they stated an observation time frame?

 

Just reading the appeal correspondence back again. They state that they are seeking Keeper liability in accordance with POFA, yet the NOK was issued 24 days after the event. A minimum of 28 days must pass. Therefore, they don't comply, and you could have them for breach of data protection too.

 

They mention that guests have parked in "no parking areas". If they're implying that you've parked in a "no parking area" then that is a forbidding term, so does not include an offer of any sort. It's not as if you're "obstructing" others or parking "inconsiderately as this", even if overhanging the invisible red line.

 

Actually, they do state that the vehicle was parked "over an area of no parking", which gives you something firm to grip onto on the forbidding term argument. There are case examples to support this.

 

Finally, before I bow out for the evening, they refer to the site map, and you being perked over the red line. How are you supposed to know where that line is situated, particularly when there isn't even a single sign fixed to that side of the "communal area"?

[harni]

I’m glad you guys are picking a lot more holes here than I saw with this.

I think now I need to write the reply to BW and post it off tomorrow but how much detail do I go into? Is it a simple “stop wasting my time” letter or do I go into detail with these points you have all raised and basically say “take me to court if you think you’re clever enough?”

[brassnecked]

Simpler the better maybe acidic like ericsbrother might write, but no specifics of what you would use to defend a claim. Just area you park in isn't covered by them as per the map perhaps so no jurisdiction to ground invoice, as per pics in post#56 and Shamrocker's comments in #57/ others will give some constructive ideas no doubt.

[honeybee13]

Please post up your proposed reply here, minus any identifying details. We can make sure you don't say anything that might give CPM any ammunition.

 

HB

[harni]

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of claim dated 19th December 2018 regarding being “parked outside of marked bay”. It certainly gave us something to laugh about!

 

I am writing to inform you that I have no intention whatsoever in paying your fictitious invoice and I welcome seeing yourselves and Simon in court.

 

The map provided by CPM showing the area they "manage" does not cover the area where the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no contract formed between myself and CPM whatsoever.

 

I hope this will be the last waste of paper I see from yourselves however, if not I am more than happy to defend this matter in court.

 

Kindest Regards,

[FTMDave]

Are CPM one of Simon's companies?

[harni]

I believe they are however i could just identify the owners of CPM?

 

Does anyone have any criticisms of the proposed letter before i send it to BW?

[shamrocker]

Who is Simon?

[dx100uk]

simon renshaw smith.

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=simon+renshaw+smith&sa=Search+CAG

[shamrocker]

What's his link with Countrywide Parking Management Limited?

[FTMDave]

I believe they are however i could just identify the owners of CPM?

 

I asked as I'd not heard of Simon Renshaw-Smith being associated with CPM. If you're sure it's one of his companies, leave the letter as is.

 

If not, instead of "Simon" put the name(s) of the idiot(s) who rejected your appeal and who you've tracked down.

[harni]

I’ll change it to the owners of CPM for clarity’s sake.

 

Funnily enough I had an email from BW today...”contact us about your account with us” requesting me to email them back. Is it advisable to send this by post?

[FTMDave]

The experts here advise to never use e-mail. Send your letter by normal post both to BWL and CPM, and get free certificates of posting.

 

Then we'll see who is "pathetic" when they have to put up or shut up!!!

[harni]

Note taken, letter being sent tomorrow!

[shamrocker]

Personally, I wouldn't bother mentioning the company directors - but that's me. I'd also suggest adding the parting shot about costs back in.

 

As per FTMDave above, send it by post, but get proof of posting.

 

Don't email anything to them nor provide an email address for correspondence (albeit you already have). Just ignore their emails, or block if possible. Keep correspondence minimal and strictly by post.

[brassnecked]

Reason for never using e'mail is clear, if they did try court they could send documents at last minute, say 12:01 am on the day of the case and say you had had them.

[ploddertom]

I would say to anyone who does decide to communicate with them by email to use a tracker - you may be surprised how many times your message is read & circulated - Get Notify is a free to use one providing you are not sending multitudes of them.

[dx100uk]

Never use Email!!

[harni]

It’s shameful really that they could do something like that and get away with it but then, their whole business model is based on fraud so it’s hardly surprising!