CPM Unsucessful "Appeal" Letter - What Next? Options

[MrsPickle]

I received a PCN through the post for parking in the unused carpark of an empty building. I had checked before I parked, and I couldn't find any signs, so I left my mobile number in the windscreen just in case. I was in a building across the road so could have moved it easily should there have been a need.

Anyway, I responded to the letter saying that I would not be paying, gave them a few reasons, and said I wouldn't be in touch again unless they answered all my points. I wouldn't call my letter an appeal, it was just a reply to say no.

They have now sent another letter to say they haven't dropped their charge. They've given me a few reasons, but I do not feel that they have answered my points. I wont be taking it up with the IAS as they advise, as this to me is giving some merit to their parking charge, which has no merit at all due to lack of signage.

I'm just not sure of next best step. Do I send another letter to them (I said in my letter I wouldn't do this unless they answered ALL of my points, and they don't appear to have done so), do I just ignore it, or do I pay the £60 for an easy life? (PS I'm not going to pay).

If I ignore it, what's the likelihood of them dropping it v. them referring it to their solicitors?

I have uploaded their initial letter here, along with my reply. I will load their 2nd letter in a further comment, and try to load the photos I sent to them.

Please bear with, and thank you for any help/advice.

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 17:21

Attached File(s)

 CPM_Letter.pdf ( 653.61K ) Number of downloads: 98
 Response_to_CPM_Letter_Only_Low_Res.pdf ( 236.6K ) Number of downloads: 90

 

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

Edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use phrases like "the driver ....."

Let's see the dates.

It's not clear but I understand that there was a windscreen ticket, you wrote to them and they responded with the Parking Charge Notice. You gave them your name and address in the first letter to them?

Can you take a picture of the car park to show that there were no signs?

[MrsPickle]

Here's the 2nd letter from CPM

Hi Ostell

Unfortunately I had not found this forum at the time of sending my reply to CPM, and I have already worded my letter to them in a way that gives obvious admission to it being me who was the driver at that time. What kind of issues can this present for me?

Date of incident: 17th Jan 2018
Date of their letter: 25th Jan 2018
Date their letter received: 1st Feb 2018
Date of my response: 6th Feb 2018
Date of their 2nd letter: 2nd March 2018
Date their 2nd letter received: 3rd March 2018

No windscreen ticket. First I knew they had given a charge was when I received the letter.

I have taken a number of photos and sent these to them with my letter.

I returned to the site after I received their first letter to see if I could find signage. I did find one sign, but the sign is located on entrance to the side of the building. My car was left in an area at the front of the building, there is no sign on entrance to this area or within this area. I demonstrated this in the photos that I sent to them. I will try to load the photos here too but they are large and I'm attempting to shrink them.

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 17:39

Attached File(s)

 CPM_2nd_Letter_Low_Res.pdf ( 330.25K ) Number of downloads: 103

 

[MrsPickle]

Here are 3 of the 4 photos I sent. I appear to have reached the limit on file upload space for this post.

Attached File(s)

 Response_to_CPM_Exhibits_A_B_C_Low_Res.pdf ( 671.75K ) Number of downloads: 98

 

[MrsPickle]

Exhibit D (which I can't upload) was just showing where my car was parked, but to give you an idea it was parked to the left of the white micra/fiat 500/small car you can see in exhibit C.

[StuartBu]

Exhibit D (which I can't upload) was just showing where my car was parked, but to give you an idea it was parked to the left of the white micra/fiat 500/small car you can see in exhibit C.

Use an external image host like Tinypic or Flickr and post the [IMG] links generated .

[Jlc]

I had checked before I parked, and I couldn't find any signs, so I left my mobile number in the windscreen just in case.

I returned to the site after I received their first letter to see if I could find signage. I did find one sign, but the sign is located on entrance to the side of the building. My car was left in an area at the front of the building, there is no sign on entrance to this area or within this area. I demonstrated this in the photos that I sent to them. I will try to load the photos here too but they are large and I'm attempting to shrink them.

Poor signage is a defence. If the signage is virtually non-existent then there could be no contract. (At best you may have been trespassing)

[ostell]

Shame about the driver bit, but what's done is done.

All I can add is that the sign is a forbidding sign. The parking is for "Authorised vehicles Only". There is no offer of parking contract for non authorised vehicles and therefore if therre is no contract then there can be no terms to be broken. It is contrary to forbid parking for non authorised and then permit parking.

[MrsPickle]

Hi Ostell. Thank you for your advice regarding it being a forbidding sign.

Hi JLC, thank you for the advice on poor signage.

Hi StuartBu, thank you for the advice regarding external image hosting, I'm hoping I wont have to upload further, but let's see!


My argument would be that if the CPM arrangement is there as a deterrent to parking, why aren't there obvious signs to say "NO PARKING, £100 FINE".
The forbidding sign part may be a bit beyond me when it comes to argument, but at least I have it there.

What to do next? I don't know whether to write to CPM again to state again that I will not be paying their charge (maybe restating/adding to the previous reasons), or whether to just leave it now and see what happens. In my letter to them I did say that I wouldn't enter into correspondence with them unless they answered all of my points specifically, which I don't believe they have, as such I'm reluctant to write to them again and contradict what I said in the first letter.

Looking at other posts, if I do nothing CPM will likely refer it to their lawyers who would then be in contact with me. Would the lawyers be likely to take it to court when there is little evidence of signage and the "car park" I parked in isn't technically a car park but private land?

Thanks for your help guys.

[ostell]

A private company cannot issue a fine that's why the parking companies issue a charge you agreed to for the breach of contract you created when you parked. When the sign does not allow parking then it is a forbidding sign and is not offering a contract to park and therefore if no contract then there can be no breach. It would be perverse to say a contract was in existence when the driver did the very thing that was forbidden.

Having appealed then wait and se what appears next.

[nosferatu1001]

Forbidding isnt tricky to understand, once you get what is needed for them to have a contract with someone
They have to offer someone something of valud. Parking would be the thing of value here - just highly premium parking! But they cannot say "No parking" and then claim they offered you parking - that would, of crouse, NOT be an offer. its the exact opposite!

IF there is no offer, there cannot be a contracty.

[MrsPickle]

Ah I see, perhaps "NO PARKING" in big letters, with something below to say CPM manage this area, please locate sign for full terms, would be more appropriate. It's annoying that I did look for signs on the day, and I found nothing. If there was a big sign I would have found somewhere else to park! Probably just would have "borrowed" someone else's space at the office I was working in!

Thanks both, I think I see what you mean now regarding forbidding. For a contract to exist there must be an offer and acceptance. There was no offer.

When you say "having appealed", do you mean my one and only letter back to CPM? I didn't use the appeal process they suggested as didn't want to give merit to their charge.

From what you are saying regarding forbidding signs, and what I thought myself regarding the signage location being poor, they would be silly to take this to court.

[nosferatu1001]

No
Again, for their "business model" to work, they HAVE TO OFFER A CONTRACT

"No parking" explicitly forbids you from parking.

If they cannot show a contract existed, then the person parking was at WORST a trespasser -a nd only the landholder can sue, only for actual damages. So not the £100 they calim, and the PPC are 99% of the time not the actual landhodler.

[MrsPickle]

I have now received a 3rd letter from CPM, see link. They will increase their overdue charge to £149 in the first instance of further action.
The only thing I done so far is sending a response to their 1st letter.
Should I respond to this 3rd letter or sit tight?

nosferatu1001, sorry if i keep missing the point. I believe that there is no contract, therefore they cannot enforce any contract terms on me. The reason there is no contract is because they never offered me anything and therefore never offered a contract. Am I there?
Is that a better defence than the defence of poor signage because it is easier to prove and clear cut, whereas poor signage can be interpreted differently by different people?

Is there an element of harassment here? I responded to the first letter telling them why I wouldn't be paying and that I wouldn't enter into correspondence unless they answered all of my points. They sent a second letter which made references to a couple of my points but not all. Now they send me a further/3rd letter continuing to demand payment.

Thanks for your help and input.

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 10:30

[ostell]

They have admitted in their letter that it was "Unauthorised Parking" so get a photo of that sign.

[MrsPickle]

Hi Ostell
Here's the sign I found when I went back to the site



Thanks,

[nosferatu1001]

As we've said, that's a forbidding sign

You don't defend on a subtle point unless you're brave or ill informed. You use ALL relevant arguments. No contract plus unclear signs.

[MrsPickle]

Hello again all!
Well it didn’t go away. I’ve receieved a letter from Gladstone’s asking that I respond.
Do I respond to Gladstone’s, or continue to sit tight?
Thanks

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 19:19

[Redivi]

What's the title of the Gladstones letter ?

By the way - it's not CPM it's UKCPM, a nasty little company that issues a lot of ill-founded claims

[MrsPickle]

Hello,
It’s titled “letter before claim”
“if you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment you are able to reply pursuant to paragraph 4 of the pre-action protocol for debt claims under the civil procedure rules 1998 (the ‘PAP’). A version of the information sheet and reply form taken from the PAP can be completed on our website . Before completing the online reply form you must first create a login for which you will require your reference. Alternatively you can request a paper version. We refer you to paragraph 2.1© of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately. Please reply within 30 days of the date of this letter. Any reply receieved outside of the 30 day period may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.”