CPM 5*PCNs - residential parking - No Permit - but parked in my allocated space - appealed - Victoria House, Ferndown

[FTMDave]

Good idea.

[10shinhan]

This is from the website, I think this has to be a selectable option:

Why Do I Have To Confirm That I Was The ‘Driver’ Or The ‘Keeper’ At The Time Of The Parking Event As I Am Entitled Not To Incriminate Myself?

The purpose of Alternative Dispute Resolution is to resolve issues between consumers and traders relating to the provision of goods or services. If goods are purchased from a store and are faulty, then it is the person who bought the goods who has the legal right to raise the matter with the store (and to issue court proceedings against them if the grievance remains unresolved).

Although the purchaser may appoint a solicitor or some other person to represent them during the process, the legal relationship is still between the store and the person who bought the goods (and no one else).

In the case of a parking charge; it is the driver who is liable for the charge in the first instance and in certain circumstances the keeper can become liable.

In identifying yourself as either the keeper or the driver, you are not incriminating yourself. You still have the ability to contest the charge on any point that renders the charge invalid and you are simply confirming that it is you that has that legal relationship with the parking operator.

Furthermore, you have the freedom to choose whether or not to use the Independent Appeals Service at all. If you do not want to identify yourself as being party to the arbitration proceedings, you are at liberty not to use the IAS Appeals Service and to insist that the parking operator enforces the charge against you through the courts.

Can I collect this, go back and say I wasn't the driver?

I can make a response to the operator.

The appeal hasn't finished yet.

Should I contact them and explain that I am not the driver and this information is wrong?

[FTMDave]

I doubt it.  You've thrown away your legal protection.

Fortunately you've only done so for one invoice - you still have POFA protection for the other four.

Plus for all five you have the lease, legally known as "Supremacy of Contract".

This is why the IAS/IPC leeches have an appeals procedure, certainly not to consider appeals, but to con the keeper into outing the driver.

 

[10shinhan]

I see, I wish I'd known this before. Like you said luckily I've only done it with one of the tickets, no more! Hopefully it's not the same with the CPM, I don't remember admitting to be the driver with the others

[lookinforinfo]

You said in your appeal that  "I have a parking permit which I displayed".  That is virtually admitting that you were the driver which is why we don't recommend appealing. 

So don't try appealing any further tickets you are on a winner with all the other PCNs. And all is not lost with the appealed one. Just a different line of attack. Shame they aren't slapping tickets on windscreens you could have them for trespass then.

As you are on the premises  could you please post up legible photos of their signage including the one at the entrance and any that are different from others within the boundary of the building complex. They are usually the same but sometimes they get carried away and have a variety of signs which can count in yor favour.

And as they have got their PCNs so badly wrong who knows how bad their signage could be.

I take back what I said about your appeal. that wasn't a bad attempt at all.

Doomed to failure of course with IAS  but you weren't to know and not fatal against the chuckleheads at  CPM.

[10shinhan]

In my appeals on the others, I think the appeal to CPM for the other 2 I said the same thing, I've said that 3 times now.

The other 2 I have not appealed at all, they are already going through the next stage. 

here is the signage.

I think they are all the same.

I will check. If there is any different ones I'll post them.

sign.pdf

[FTMDave]

There's not one of us on CAG who hasn't made mistakes in legal dispute.  That's just inevitable if you haven't been in the situation before.

The important thing is to learn from the mistakes and get it right next time.

From now on educate yourself about your legal position, which because of your lease is very good.  I would think, some months down the line, you will have to face - and thrash - these idiots in court.  There is £800 at stake.

When you have time, bit by bit, have a read of these threads

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html?m=0

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

You will see why your position is so strong and why the PPCs get hammered time after time in court in residential parking cases.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting the sign.

Interesting that they repeat the extra £60 that IPC think they can get away with when PoFA  [and Beavis] are quite explicit

-the first amount on the sign is all that can be charged.

More and more PCNs are now also carrying the threat of extra charges when there is absolutely no mention of them throughout the Act.

I think that we be complaining in each Witness Statement about such occurrences. 

I ask the Site team if including such a statement on a PCN renders that PCN unlawful or non compliant or both or neither?

Just by chance when I was looking for something else, I came across this case 

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson - The court office at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family - Studocu

And I also found this that you might find interesting and may help to concentrate the minds of your MA.

how+to+get+rid+of+managing+agents+on+an+estate+in+UK - Google Search

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

 

 

[10shinhan]

Thanks for all your help guys

[honeybee13]

I sent you a private message, could you check your inbox please?

HB

[10shinhan]

I  got 2 rejections from CPM, surprise surprise:

Site: Victoria House
Issue date: 13/02/2024
Thank you for your appeal received on 11/03/2024 in relation to the above detailed Parking Charge.

We are writing to advise you, that, after careful consideration, we have concluded that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The terms & conditions of parking at Victoria House have been exceptionally well advertised and are brought to the attention of the driver by way of the onsite warning signs.

They inform the driver that they must clearly display a valid parking permit within the windscreen when parking within the car park.

Whilst we appreciate your explanation, at the time of the contravention you were not clearly displaying a valid parking permit which is a breach of the terms & conditions and were therefore issued a Parking Charge.

As the signage states "All vehicles must display a valid parking permit
clearly within the front windscreen". You should refrain from parking in the car park if you do not have the correct parking permit in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.

After reviewing the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and as such, must now be paid in full.

The reduced rate of £60.00 is now payable by 27/03/2024. If payment is not received by 27/03/2024 the amount due will increase to £100.00.

You can pay your PCN by visiting www.payapcn.co.uk or by calling 0333 023 0058.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you disagree with our decision, you can submit an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) by visiting www.theias.org. Appeals to the IAS must be submitted within 21 days from the date of this letter.

Please note, should you decide to submit an appeal to the IAS and it is subsequently rejected, the option to pay the discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount will become due.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Countrywide Parking Management

Issue date: 14/02/2024
Thank you for your appeal received on 11/03/2024 in relation to the above detailed Parking Charge.

We are writing to advise you, that, after careful consideration, we have concluded that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The terms & conditions of parking at Victoria House have been exceptionally well advertised and are brought to the attention of the driver by way of the onsite warning signs.

They inform the driver that they must clearly display a valid parking permit within the windscreen when parking within the car park.

Whilst we appreciate your explanation, at the time of the contravention you were not clearly displaying a valid parking permit which is a breach of the terms & conditions and were therefore issued a Parking Charge.

As the signage states "All vehicles must display a valid parking permit
clearly within the front windscreen". You should refrain from parking in the car park if you do not have the correct parking permit in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.

After reviewing the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and as such, must now be paid in full.

The reduced rate of £60.00 is now payable by 27/03/2024. If payment is not received by 27/03/2024 the amount due will increase to £100.00. You can pay your PCN by visiting www.payapcn.co.uk or by  calling 0333 023 0058.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you disagree with our decision, you can submit an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) by visiting www.theias.org.

Appeals to the IAS must be submitted within 21 days from the date of this letter. Please note, should you decide to submit an appeal to the IAS and it is subsequently rejected, the option to pay the discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount will become due.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Countrywide Parking Management

They also included a picture of the car park signs at the bottom.

[lookinforinfo]

You could have countered back had they allowed that had they the knowledge to produce proper permits that could be affixed to the windscreen instead of A4 size pieces of paper, your permit would  have been on the windscreen.

Further, why does the permit have to be on the windscreen, surely if it is clearly visible on the dashboard for example then the fact that there is a current permit should be enough.

[10shinhan]

The permits are in an A4 piece of paper, but they do tear away into a small sticky square that you can stick to the windshield.

[10shinhan]

 

Here is the response to the appeal I made to the IAS a while back. Surprise, surprise, they rejected my appeal! 

 

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): .......
Vehicle Registration: 
Date Issued: 06/02/2024

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
 

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
There is no dispute in this case that the Appellant is entitled to park on this site, or indeed that he is in possession of a valid permit in order to do so.
However, the terms for parking are prominently displayed, and are clear and unequivocal; a valid permit must be clearly displayed at all times when parked at this site. The permit was not clearly displayed as required. It is always the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the permit is clearly displayed prior to leaving the vehicle unattended.
Having considered all the issues raised I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law and accordingly this appeal has to be dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

 

You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

[10shinhan]

Here is one of the tickets I ignored

IgnoredTicket-1.pdf

[lolerz]

Keep pushing the managing agent to cancel and ignore any correspondence from CPM unless it's a letter of claim

[10shinhan]

Here is the other ticket I ignored. Both only have one side A4 printed on (nothing on the back)

IgnoredTicket-2.pdf

Edited March 27 by 10shinhan

[10shinhan]

Thanks lolerz. I have ignored these 2, wish I had ignored the other 3.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting the sign. Is that the sign at the entrance, or inside, or both?

Their PCN that you showed on post 3 does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. there is no parking period mentioned on the Notice [timings on the photos do not count] they have missed out the words in parentheses in Sectoion9[2][f] of the Act  

(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;

They are also very woolly when asking that the PCN is paid. It should be the keeper who is invited to pay though in S9[2][e] there is a provision for the driver to pay so I would take their version as not being compliant.

In addition we are seeing more and more PCNs including the unlawful extra charge of £60 . There is no mention of it at all in PoFA. Indeed the Act includes the fact that all that can be claimed is the amount on the sign. It is about time that this practice is stamped out since it appears to give that extra charge an appearance of legitimacy.

That amount in itself should render the PCN non compliant and while it may not, it should be castigated in your Witness Statement should it get that far.

[10shinhan]

The sign is outside in the car park on a fence. There are a few of them around, I thought they were all the same. I will check tomorrow and see if any of the other signs are different.

Thanks for all your help.

[10shinhan]

There are about 10 signs around the car park and I've checked them, they are all the same as the one I've previously posted.

[lookinforinfo]

 

 

Please ignore my comment about signage -it was meant for another thread.

 

Edited March 28 by lookinforinfo

[FTMDave]

It's worth you keeping an eye on dbuk2000's thread.

Their case is virtually identical to yours and they will have a court hearing on 22 April.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466177-ukpc-2x-windscreen-pncs-claimform-appealed-residential-parking-in-my-own-space-forgot-permit/

 

[FTMDave]

Have you seen dbuk2000's result?

[10shinhan]

I've just been over and read it. Fantastic result. 

 

I have been kicking up such a fuss in the back ground that i think the directors will have to get my tickets cancelled. I'll let you know when it's official.