UKCPM/Gladestones Vanishing windscreen PCN Claimform - Parked in loading only bay - The Edition - 130 Colindale Avenue, colindale, London nw9 5HE ***Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

Their PCN is not compatible with PoFA2012 so you are not liable as keeper for the alleged debt-only the driver is liable. 

Not compatible because no period of parking is mentioned -all it mentions is the incident time which is not a parking period. Also wording missing and it must be included to validate the PCN.

The signage does not say that the car was in the commercial area, just that if you were in the commercial area you had to be loading/unloading.

Will try and get back later.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

 

Yes especially as it helps the Judge  for one thing. 

had you ben reading up on some of the successes there has been on CAG you would have seen them in more than one case plus you wold have got some added knowledge which may have helped you in court when you come across solicitors who are trying to bamboozle you in court.

 

The wording that has to be correct is in Schedule 4 section  9  [2][f] warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

In your PCN the words in brackets are missing. This in itself makes the PCN non compliant.  But the applicable conditions were not met earlier on in the PCN where there was no mention of the parking period just an incident time which fails compliance with PoFA2012.  The question is how long did the incident time last? Ten seconds? Five minutes?  Was it parking or just stopping for a short time? so the PCN is not compliant for a second reason. CPM should be put to strict proof the length of the parking period. If they cannot do that then the case should be cancelled as if the time could be  less than 10 minutes  because there is a grace period of 10 minutes at least.

 

The failure of the PCN to comply means that you as keeper cannot be liable for the alleged debt. If CPM cannot prove how long the car was parked in the loading area, the driver cannot be held liable either.

 

The sign behind your car contain the parking regulations not an indication that it is the Commercial zone.  Very confusing if CPM think that is  saying ithe sign is in  meant to say it is in the commercial area. In the event of confusion, it is the driver's right to take the most advantageous meaning as the correct one . 

 

The signees names on  contract as well as the name of the land owner have been redacted.  As we cannot confirm anyone  on the contract, it is not worth the paper it is printed on. There is no proof that the land owner is named on the contract nor that even if it was the landowner, that the signatory was an authorised signatory for the company or a made up name by CPM for example. Also  there are no witnesses to the contract. All in all there is no way that one can confirm that it is a valid contract.

 

The signage does not appear to be illuminated thus difficult to find, let alone be able to read. The font size for the £100 charge is smaller than the T&CS and does not seem to be part of the T&Cs as it is separated by a line of much smaller font sizes.

 

The contract is governed by the Law of England, not the IPC code of Practice.  So for one thing the extra £60 charges are classed as being a  rip off by the government and under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s7 [2][c][1]  a sum which is mentioned in the Notice [ie Notice to Keeper]. 

So their attempt at overcharging is an abuse of process and is a disgrace that CPM and their solicitors are still demanding these extra charges when it is patently obvious that not only is it against PoFA it is also counter to the Private Parking Code of Practice February 2022 Section 9 " sand thus against the Law.

9. Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Exactly. They  could easily cobble up an agreement signed by the tea boy and the charlady, redact their signatures and present it as a bona fide contract.

If they do come up with the name of the land owner and the signatory, ask for time to check that they are the land owner and the signee is allowed to sign. It really should be a director of the company. You can find their company name on the Companies House website then scroll down the page and you will see along from Overview there is "People" which will when clicked on give you all their current directors.

I think the Judge will have seen enough before that and kicked their case out. But it is there as backup.

 

Good luck.

[lookinforinfo]

Your WS is not as concise as it could be.

The main criticism I  have is that you did not put the most important point first-that the PCN is not compliant. Therefore you cannot be held responsible for the debt. You were not the driver so there is no case.

the Judge should end it there without the necessity to read further. That is assuming  CPM even go to Court.

 

If you can, then I would suggest that change but time may be against you to make the change. 

[lookinforinfo]

I think he has gone to the Flannan Isle to help DX with the sheep shearing.

What Dave doesn't know is that Dx has no dogs at the moment so Dave will have to bark and round up the sheep.

So he will be fit when he gets back if slightly hoarse.

[lookinforinfo]

Honeybee it was just by chance that I looked in. 

     LFI X

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I know £40 is the easier solution.

However you may feel different when you walk out of Court without paying the crooks a penny.

Plus they will have paid around £300 for the solicitor and £35 court fees which I hope will be educational (certainly will have taught them a lesson.

Don't forget to ask for your costs when you win. Things like lost money by not being at work today, travel expenses and parking. Oh the irony!

 

In Court it is very informal- you address the judge as Sir not your honour.

You have a strong case-you were not the driver and the non compliant PCN means they cannot transfer the alleged debt to you.

 

Take a copy of PoFA 2012 and the Private Parking Code of Conduct with you and include the preamble by the Minister where he says that he expects that the parking companies should be making  some changes already.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry HB, I stand corrected. In my defence when I have been in Court (3 times - parking tickets in the early days when they were statute barred after 6 months -,happy days) all the Judges were men.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am very pleased you won. Aren't you glad the £40 wasn't paid.?

 

Some times I despair with Judges how they  come to their decisions. In this case there were so many reasons that could have won the case but this Judge chose perhaps one of the least expected ones  to deny  UKPCM. That is why everything has to be thrown in to win a case since we never know which item is the one which decides the Judge in favour of the defendant..

 

Well done once again.