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

[harni]

Hi All,

Need a little advice as to where i stand and how to proceed.

 

Myself and my partner moved into a new flat in July 2018 where the car park is managed by these clowns.

We are one of about 10 who are fortunate enough to have a very big parking space where two cars can be parked back to back.

We questioned this in the viewing and was told this was acceptable.

 

The issues with countrywide parking started about a month after we moved in where we got a ticket on one of our cars for being parked incorrectly.

This was appealed and of course, lost.

It was then appealed to IAS and of course, lost.

Since then we have taken the advice on here and i'm hoping that the letter received yesterday from BW legal titled Letter before claim is now the last from these cowboys

 

The main issue i have is that since then, we have received multiple tickets on our vehicles (about 5 i believe) for the reason of "double parking".

Thankfully, i have a copy of a letter from these cowboys that was sent to all residents before we moved in specifically highlighting that double parking was allowed in these spaces.

This was thrown back at them during one of the appeals and yesterday we have received the appeal rejection saying that the block management have changed their mind, only single vehicles can now park in these spaces and that my appeal has been rejected on this matter (first i knew of this change of ruling).

 

Firstly, where do i stand with appealing these and going forwards?

One of the main reasons we moved in here was because it had the benefit of space to park two vehicles.

There is no road parking around here that isn't charged so thats not really an option.

 

I don't want to keep getting these PCNs.

i know that CPM have never taken someone to court but i do not want to end up in a situation where they take us to court to make an example seeing as we will probably have a substantial amount of these by the time our lease is up!

 

As expected, the appeal responses from them are pathetic, don't actually address the points i'm making and are going against their own signage and terms but i'm now starting to use a substantial amount of time dealing with these and whilst i'm taking great pleasure in wasting their time and money, id rather not have to!

[harni]

Thanks for your help

Below is the letter of claim. Unfortunately we do not have the NTK anymore

 

1 The date of infringement? 12/07/18

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] Yes

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. Yes - https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuvha294jl2bb36/Appeal.pdf?dl=0

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuvha294jl2bb36/Appeal.pdf?dl=0

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it - Unsure, NTK now missing

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? - yes

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] - Unsure

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] - Yes, referred to IAS who also rejected the appeal

 

5 Who is the parking company? - Countrywide Parking Management

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth

......................... ….

Appeal.pdf

 

[harni]

I will openly admit here i'm useless at writing these sorts of things so please do pick holes. Also, can i email this or does it have to be sent by post?

 

 

BW Legal

Reference: PCN/XXXXXXXX

 

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.

 

I’m sure you are aware that your initial legal costs aren’t worth the paper they are written on and to date, you have still failed to create liability.

 

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. I would also like to make you aware that I intend on raising a counterclaim should this reach court for damages.

 

Kindest Regards,

[harni]

BW Legal

Reference: PCN/XXXXXXXX

 

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of claimicon 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.

 

I’m sure you are aware that your initial legal costs aren’t worth the paper they are written on and to date, you have still failed to create liability.

 

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. I would also like to make you aware that I intend on raising a counterclaim should this reach court for damages.

 

If you had been bothered to do the tiniest bit of due diligence, you would have seen that not only does the driver enjoy supremacy of contract but to put the icing on the cake has a written agreement from your clients to park as they did". And right at the end "Obviously I will request full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g))

 

 

Done, Will be sent! Thanks for your help

 

Following on from my recent thread about being bombarded with PCNs from CPM in my own parking space (thought it would be best to start a new thread), i wanted some advice on 2 tickets that i have had to appeal...or at least tried to

 

On their website and the windscreen PCN, they offer two ways of appealing a parking ticket

Online using their portal and by post.

 

The IPC code of practice clearly states that "You must not require the motorist or keeper to submit a stamped-addressedenvelope as a pre-requisite for an appeal.".

They also state on their website that any appeals by email will not be accepted under any circumstance.

Therefore this has forced me to appeal in only one way, by post which is clearly not free.

I have emailed them with an appeal which i know will be ignored but where do i go from here?

 

I have evidence of their website not accepting the appeal and whilst id like to make things as difficult as possible for them, i feel a complaint to the IPC would be absolutely pointless?

Edited December 27, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[harni]

More than anything, i want to have them contacting me. The vehicle is leased.

[harni]

Could you give me some idea as to what needs removing? I’d appreciate any comments.

[harni]

How long has that been the case?

when I worked for my old company and I have a parking charge, I would directly identify myself to the parking firm as being in charge of the vehicle st the time and they were quite happy to deal with me.

 

My reasoning behind that is that most lease company charge a fee to deal with parking tickets.

[harni]

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

[harni]

This is why I started a second thread. I fear it may get a little confusing now

 

With regards to the two tickets that I have just received but can’t appeal due to their website not working, do I just write to them and tell them I was in charge of the vehicle and to send all corresponding to me? It’s a lease vehicle.

[harni]

Thanks, guess my proof reading isn’t exactly that good this evening!

[harni]

Surely it depends on my wording?

I was not going to expose myself as the driver as that would be silly but surely if I was the hirer of the vehicle from the lease company then I could ask them to contact me based on that?

That was the vibe I got from reading parking cowboys

 

Alternatively, their office is about 100yds from my house so I could just pop down there to give them the letter by hand

Edited December 27, 2018 by dx100uk
quote

[harni]

They aren’t. They are all for one vehicle with exception of two which are on a leased car

[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!

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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!

[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

[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!

[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

[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

[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?”

[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,

[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?