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***

[dx100uk]

that's as clear as mud...

 

so you have 2 cars...[obv I know as your threads are about this 'double parking' residential spaces]

 

2 of the tickets - 1 being subject to a letter of claim - relate to a vehicle you are the registered keeper too

and the other 2 tickets relate to your other car - with is a lease car?

 

just confirm the above for the minute please...

[ericsbrother]

harni said:

Do I send them a letter then stating I am responsible for the vehicle and that all correspondence should come via me?

 

no need, you appealed as the driver and it is your space so they know they are writing to the right person.

 

the other thing to consider is you got ticketed fro "double parking". Now this must be mentioned as being stricty banned in ther conditions by having wording on their sigange that says somehting like " only one vehicel per parking space is permitted regardless of what we say in our correspondence".

 

Let them do the worrying as well and to that end stop tryinmg to resolve this in a hurry. If they sye they wull lose, you dont need to counterclaim for your costs, they will get clobbered for unreasonable behaviour but you can claim for breach of the GDPR for obtaining your keeper details without good reason but the problem is it may be the lase co's details that were obtained, not yours.

 

Do you really want yo go after the lease co for passig on your details when theyre was no cause to? They wont know whtehr the parking co were right or wrong and unless you want to punish them it will just be a sideshow

[harni]

that's as clear as mud...

 

so you have 2 cars...[obv I know as your threads are about this 'double parking' residential spaces]

 

2 of the tickets - 1 being subject to a letter of claim - relate to a vehicle you are the registered keeper too

and the other 2 tickets relate to your other car - with is a lease car?

 

just confirm the above for the minute please...

 

You've got it right

2 that relate to the car we are a registered keeper of are quite progressed, one being at letter of claim stage

The two on the lease vehicle have only had their windscreen PCNs left on it in the past few days

 

Erics brother, on their appeal portal they have the option to tick who you are appealing as, one as the driver, one as the RK and one on behalf of the RK. I selected the latter which is correct in this scenario

 

Finally, their signage mentions absolutely nothing about being double parked. This is the funny thing, in their letters they say things like "its abundantly clear you have broken the terms and conditions" yet it's a generic car park sign.

 

To put it clearly, i'm not bothered about the parking charges. I'll quite happily deal with these even into court. In fact, i want to now after doing some digging into the company and finding out its just two guys who run loads of very very small businesses...badly! My only concern is the leased vehicle.

 

Thanks all!

[ericsbrother]

It is your parking space so no judge would believe you didnt know who was driving at the time and even though the POFA syas the parking co must get things right most judges will use the balance of probabilities to decide that it was lilely the driver and the keeper were the same so when arguing about YOUR space it isnt worth muddying the waters and stick with waht matters.

 

you can fire off a suitably worded response if you wish but dont be polite. Tell them their clients are too thick to read back what they have written sp perhaps BWL could pitch up and read the sigsn for themselves before they send out any more stupid demands for breaches that dotn exist to a person who has su[premacy of contract oer their illegally sited signs.

[Mrs O'Frog]

Not sure if this is something to pick up on if it ever gets to court, but found this in their appeal rejection "The PCN charge is to act as a deterant (sic)".

[renegadeimp]

can you post the full rejection letter?

[Mrs O'Frog]

I found the appeal rejection in the link in the OP's post #4. To be honest, although no expert in parking matters, when I read the PPC's rejection it seems to me that if brains were chocolate, they wouldn't have enough to fill a Smartie.

[harni]

Sorry for the stupid question but why would this matter? Would it be because it’s basically a penalty which they legally can’t give?

[renegadeimp]

They can give. But they certainly cant enforce it in any way

[ericsbrother]

the comment about a charge being used as a deterrent is a valid one. This is mentioned in PE v Beavis and also subject to its own case law. If the idea is to deter parking then it is an unlawful penalty and not a genuine offer of a contract to park.

 

Now the problem is if the OP doesnt make this point loud and clear to BWL they are likely to persuade the idiots at CPM to press ahead with a county court claim. Although this should result in them being blown out of the water it will waste the OP's time to defend such a claim so my advice is that they shoudl respond to BWL's threatogram but please let us see the signage first so we can add some more points to pull them up on.

Edited December 28, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[harni]

Apologies for the poor picture, as you can see it’s dark out. I’d also like to point out that not a single resident has and has never been issued a parking permit which makes a hash of their T&Cs!

 

i will reply to BW and will type out a reply mentioning the above although in a way, I would like them to take me to court. I’d love to waste as much of their time as possible!

 

sign.pdf

[brassnecked]

Says vehicles must be parked in Marked Bay, doesn't say only one per bay, if the bay can fit two. Think they are knackered by their own sign, now a suitably acid ericsbrother style response might be an idea.

[harni]

So today I have received this in regards to one of the appeals on the leased vehicle.

I find their instruction on ticketing both vehicles quite amusing!

 

CPM 2018-12-27.pdf

[Mrs O'Frog]

Time to invest in a car trailer

 

It matters not one iota what the management agents may or may not have written in any correspondence, if you have parked within a marked bay you have complied with their "abundantly clear" terms and conditions as indicated on their signs.

 

The ticketing both vehicles is hilarious. It would be like watching a long tennis rally in court. "I didn't double park, he did!", "No, I was there first, she double parked!", "No, he did"....... get the popcorn out!

 

BTW - sorry if this has been covered - but what does your lease/tenancy agreement say?

[FTMDave]

So if a resident parks in their bay, and a stranger drives in from the street and parks next to the resident's car, both get tickets! Love to see a judge's opinion of that!!!

[FTMDave]

Think they are knackered by their own sign, now a suitably acid ericsbrother style response might be an idea.

 

Yes, retweak the draft posted above in the light of later advice, and send it to BW Legal. Let them know they'd be thrashed in court. Just normal post from the post office will do, but get a free certificate of posting.

 

And send it to the parking company too. All this conning & fleecing isn't just aimed at the motorist. Unscrupulous solicitors love to egg on their clients to go to court regardless of any possibility of winning, it's £££ that counts.

[brassnecked]

Just for clarity Harni the bay is normal width but long enough to fit two cars or a car and caravan nose to tail?

 

As Mrs O'Frog indicates they couldn't touch a car on a trailer or caravan, they insinuate in their letters they could ticket a trailer or caravan, no can do, unless there is something in the lease that says no more than one vehicle can be parked in a bay long enough for two cars or a car and caravan then they are talking through their sorry jive ass, and should lose in court.

[harni]

For clarification, the bay is standard width and long enough for two small vehicles. Both vehicles are being parked nose to nose and against the wall behind. If we’re being really picky here, the bumper of the car at the front may overhang by about 2-3 inches however there isn’t actually a marked bay.

Funnily enough, directly opposite ours is a “single” space where the occupier parks his car overhanging the clear marking by about 1-2ft because he has his motorbike behind the car. They never get ticketed and I genuinely am starting to feel that this is a bit of a targeted attack by CPM

 

I’m going to dig out the tenancy documents later and have a read but I do know having read the lease agreement extract between our landlord and the building landlord, there is absolutely no mention anywhere of parking a single vehicle in these spaces.

 

So, having looked at the tenancy agreement (bearing in mind this is pretty much a generic agreement) the only mention of parking is the quoted below

 

Parking

1) The parking place is not included in the rent but may be used by the tenant only.

2) The parking place may only be used to park a motor vehicle that belongs to the tenant or is for the tenant's exclusive use.

3) The parking place may not be sub-let.

4) The vehicle must be taxed, insured and MOT’d by the tenant.

5) The vehicle must be roadworthy. The vehicle must not contaminate the parking place, surrounding building or other vehicles.

6) Any damage or contamination of the parking place must be cleaned/repaired by the tenant.

Edited December 29, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[dx100uk]

well 4/5 are a load of twaddle they cant enforce!!

[harni]

To add as well, the only other document that we have had to agree to on move in is an agreement between our landlord and the building landlord which basically outlines the correct useage of the building. There is only one point in there regarding to parking which is attached

 

agreement between our landlord and the building landlord.pdf

 

today we have gotten another ticket but here’s a laugh.

 

The guy issuing the ticket is obviously friends or family with someone in the block because once he ticketed my car, he went and parked up in one of the double spaces, double parked and went in!! Can’t make it up!

[Mrs O'Frog]

Sure it's not a resident on commission?

[harni]

Could be but I’m very doubtful.

 

Having done some digging into CPM ive found out who it’s run by and where they are based from

[brassnecked]

Take a sneaky picture of the other double parked car, might be useful later.

[ericsbrother]

you are missing the point about a resident on commission. The parking co's often get someone to take pictures and send them to thme in return for a £20 fee. They advertise this on their websites but fail to mention the person doing the snapping is breaking the lawe unless they register with the ICO.

 

as fopr the double parked car, I agree take pictures but not sneaky ones. Get out there with floodlights and a sound crew if you can find one. Make sure they know that all this is being saved for use against them in a very public way if need be.

 

Seriously, the tide is turning against their practices as it did when they were clampers and some good footage of their comings and goings could be used on the local news ior at least in the local paper.

Edited December 31, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[harni]

Thanks Ericsbrother. Don't worry, i had no intentions of the pictures being subtle and if i can do it so it evidences that its them parking there, i will be going to all of the local media with it. I want to do all i can here to make life difficult for these people

 

I will try and find out if they are paying residents commission for these but in all honesty i do doubt it. I hadn't realised until i saw it the other day but his car is there quite regularly so i think he's a friend of a resident here which makes it worse!