(DIR) Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
(HTM) https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
(DIR) Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 34246--------------------------------------------------
CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop&#
8217;s Stortford
By: Mark_Fletch13 Date: August 22, 2024, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening,
I received a penalty notice from CPM, UK Car Park Management
dated 6th July in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire (for a
contravention on 3rd July at “15:20”).
Essentially I was moving into a new apartment and there is no
parking anywhere near it, only double yellow lines down the
entire street, except for a private car park opposite the
apartments. Noticing that there wasn’t a complex camera
structure around the car park I thought I would be fine for five
minutes moving a couple of boxes to the apartment.
Lo and behold when I returned to my car, I saw a man dressed in
black civilian clothes loitering around where my car was, and
upon approaching him he walked off. I assumed as there
wasn’t a physical ticket (and no camera pointed at the
car, I was okay). However a letter came through demanding £100
for the contravention within 28 days (or a reduced £60 if paid
within 14 days). The reason for the ticket stated was for
“not displaying a valid permit”.
The photos enclosed of my car were taken physically but the
“patroller” (not mounted cameras). They do not have
an office that I’m aware of in the vicinity and he clearly
waited for me to leave before issuing the ‘penalty’.
I ignored the first letter, and received a second on 25th July
2024, again from CPM, UK Car Park Management, stating that now I
owe £100, and if I do nothing this will increase to £170 and
trigger them to contact a debt collector. This letter was titled
“Final chance before action”. (I note the date and
time of the alleged offence are stated as different to the first
letter, this time the time is stated as “02:48”).
The third letter came on 12th July 2024 from Debt Recovery Plus
stating that I now must pay £170 or if I do nothing, they will
“inform their legal team, share contact evidence, advise
legal action starts” and that I am making an “intent
not to pay”.
Can anyone tell me how to proceed with this and if I have any
grounds to dispute the penalty, or if they have done anything
incorrectly (like the time of the alleged offence which is
inconsistent between letters) which would allow me to avoid
lying this excessive private car park penalty.
The the car park spaces around the edge of the car park are
“reserved” for ‘Portland Place’,
‘Danescroft Limited’ ‘Clarion’,
‘St Claire hospice’, ‘riverside house’
and some just ‘reserved parking’ - are all nearby
offices or businesses as far as I can make out. I parked in the
central area (spot 9 I believe) which didn’t have any
plackards specifically on the space.
I have included images for reference of the letters received and
subsequently the car park itself.
(HTM) https://imgur.com/a/cpm-patrol-no-permit-displayed-bishop-s-stortford-fqYivqv
#Post#: 34247--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: DWMB2 Date: August 22, 2024, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As this has now reached the debt collector stage, it is now a
case of waiting to see if they decide to take you to court.
In the meantime, I'd send a complaint to CPM about that sign at
the entrance - they absolutely should not be claiming that there
is a £100 "penalty" charge - these are parking charges, and by
using the word "penalty", they are falsely implying they have
powers they do not, in breach of 25.3 of the IPC Code of
Practice
(HTM) https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf.<br
/>This isn't necessarily grounds for the charge to be cancelled,
but a complaint about this might attract attention they are keen
to avoid.
#Post#: 34256--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: Mark_Fletch13 Date: August 23, 2024, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you I will certainly send the complaint to them that you
mentioned. Should I also copy in the debt recovery company to
the email?
Also is there any way to use the date and time inconsistencies
in the same complaint email or another channel to work against
them?
Lastly if they decide they want to go to courts is the maximum
penalty I’d likely see far in excess of the £170 they are now
asking of me.
Thank you
#Post#: 34258--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: DWMB2 Date: August 23, 2024, 3:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Errors on any subsequent reminder letters are less likely to be
of use, is it right on the original notice?
I wouldn't copy the debt collectors in, they are only interested
in payment.
If it goes to court, they will probably add on a hearing fee of
£35, and legal costs of £50. The £70 added on as a debt
collection fee can usually be successfully challenged as double
recovery (the £100 charge is supposed to include their costs of
recovering the charge), so a loss in court would likely be just
over £200.
One angle of defence would also be that no contract was formed,
as the signage is forbidding. As it is a 'Permit Holders Only'
car park, they are only offering parking to permit holders.
There is no consideration offered to non permit holders, and
without an offer to park there can be no contract. Such
arguments should work, but anecdotally the results can be mixed.
#Post#: 34306--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: Mark_Fletch13 Date: August 23, 2024, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay I have replied to them and not responded to the debt
collector company. I will re-post with an outcome so others can
learn from this experience. Thank you for your help, anything
else in the meantime that may be of help please let me know.
(Would you recommend to keep the ‘permit holders only’ argument
in the event of a court case or add that to my initial response
to CPM which I have now sent?)
Thanks
#Post#: 34314--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: Mark_Fletch13 Date: August 23, 2024, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are two times quoted, sorry forgot to say that on my last
reply.
The first letter says 15:20 (which seems logical, although I
cannot verify this time as I didn’t record it myself), the
second letter says 02:48 which seems illogical, they used the
same photo and used two different times.
#Post#: 34317--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: b789 Date: August 23, 2024, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You must get out of your mind that any “offence” has been
committed. You have not received any “penalty” or “fine”. CPM
are not an “authority” of any kind. They are an unregulated
private parking company and have sent the keeper a speculative
invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
Under no circumstances communicate with the debt collectors.
They are irrelevant and not a party to any alleged breach of
contract by the driver. You can safely ignore any and all debt
collection letters.
As this has occurred after the new Joint Code of Practice (CoP)
was published, you can refer to that for breaches. In
particular, if there is any mention or suggestion of a “penalty”
either on their signs or their PCN, they are in breach of
section 3.1.3(i).
Also, if the sign mentions the word “penalty” they are liable to
a Level 4 sanction from their ATA for “deliberate
misrepresentation of authority”.
BPA/IPC Joint Code of Practice
(HTM) https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
OP, you also need to understand the meaning of double yellow
lines on public roads. As long as the kerb does not have yellow
“blips” on them, the driver is allowed to stop for loading and
unloading and no offence is being committed. A review of the
Highway Code may be in order.
#Post#: 34325--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: DWMB2 Date: August 23, 2024, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2904.msg34317#msg34317
date=1724415672]
As this has occurred after the new Joint Code of Practice (CoP)
was published, you can refer to that for breaches. In
particular, if there is any mention or suggestion of a “penalty”
either on their signs or their PCN, they are in breach of
section 3.1.3(i).
[/quote]
I'd refer to both the new and old CoPs, as there's a transition
period for signage at existing sites.
#Post#: 34362--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: Mark_Fletch13 Date: August 23, 2024, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the information.
As far as I can tell from code of practice document issued 27th
June 2024, and also the now superseded issue 7th February 2022,
both documents state the following:
“Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and
conditions applied must:
(i) be clear unambiguous and not use the words “penalty” or
“fine” unless there is a statutory requirement to do so”.
Therefore as far as I conclude the transitional period is not
applicable as the same statement appears in both issued
documents.
If I’m wrong please let me know.
(Also the double yellow lines do indeed have dashes on them
which I assume then prevents loading on the pavement).
#Post#: 34364--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM penalty by patrol ‘no permit displayed’ Bishop’s Stortfo
rd
By: DWMB2 Date: August 23, 2024, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mark_Fletch13 link=topic=2904.msg34362#msg34362
date=1724429491]
Therefore as far as I conclude the transitional period is not
applicable as the same statement appears in both issued
documents.
[/quote]
Even better. The reason I would still suggest referencing both,
is to prevent a fob-off answer of "The signs don't need to
comply with the new code yet". You can make the point that they
weren't compliant with the old code, either.
*****************************************************
(DIR) Next Page