UK CPM - Visitor parking PCN |
UK CPM - Visitor parking PCN |
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 18:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
My car was parked in a visitor's bay in my residential parking area. One morning I woke up to find a Parking Charge Notice attached to it from UK CPM, who have some signs up around the car park. The issue reason is not displaying a valid parking permit. I have a visitor's permit that is in the car but I am not sure how visible it was on this occasion.
UK CPM are a part of IPC, although the sign says they are a BPA member. I have two questions: - Am I right in thinking that I needn't do anything until I receive a Notice to Keeper through the post? - Is there any point contacting my management company to ask for the charge to be cleared (since it's designed to stop people who don't live here or aren't visiting using the bays, not to catch people who live here out), or are they likely to just refer me to UK CPM? I've attached a redacted copy of the PCN and also a photo of the signs up around the area. I've had a quick look through the contract I signed with the management company when buying the property, as well as their "welcome pack", and can't see any mention of parking whatsoever. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 18:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 10:30
Post
#161
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
- get your skeleton together. SUmmarise their failings and your strengths.
- get yoru costs schedule together. TWO sections Ordinary costs - half a days loss of pay OR LOSS OF HOLIDAY capped at £95. Mileage. Parking Unreasonable costs - show how the claimant has behaved unreasonably (bullet points) and state that,under CPR27.14(2)(g) you believe this meets the threshold of "unreasonable" and you would like the following costs to be ordered: - time to research defecne - time to write defence - time to collect evidence for WS - time to write WS all time is at £19 per hour printing, postage, etc. Itemised. Bring receipts on the day File BOTH with the court AND claimant 24 horus before the case is due. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 10:00
Post
#162
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
- get your skeleton together. SUmmarise their failings and your strengths. - get yoru costs schedule together. TWO sections Ordinary costs - half a days loss of pay OR LOSS OF HOLIDAY capped at £95. Mileage. Parking Unreasonable costs - show how the claimant has behaved unreasonably (bullet points) and state that,under CPR27.14(2)(g) you believe this meets the threshold of "unreasonable" and you would like the following costs to be ordered: - time to research defecne - time to write defence - time to collect evidence for WS - time to write WS all time is at £19 per hour printing, postage, etc. Itemised. Bring receipts on the day File BOTH with the court AND claimant 24 horus before the case is due. I have done a costs list and am going to go through the reasons that they have acted unreasonably now. How am I meant to estimate costs of printing? I have no receipts for anything except parking because I used first class post or email for all correspondence. Can I refer back to the Skeleton Argument in the Unreasonable Costs section of the Costs document? Otherwise I feel like there's a lot of duplicated text. This post has been edited by DragonQ: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 11:10 |
|
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 13:22
Post
#163
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
Skeleton summary argument:
QUOTE In the County Court at Guildford Case BLAH Between UK Car Park Management Limited and BLAH ______________________________________ DEFENDANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT ______________________________________ Preliminary 1) I, BLAH, am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this skeleton argument come from my personal knowledge except where stated. 2) I was the keeper of the vehicle in question (registration BLAH) on 19th March 2017. On that date it was parked in a visitor bay on the Campbell Fields estate. 3) I received a parking charge notice (reference: BLAH) on 20th April 2017 for “not displaying a valid permit”. Primacy of Contract 4) This case relates to “Management Land”, where my rights are governed by the Transfer (Exhibit P), referred to in my Property Title (Exhibit O) 5) Within the Transfer, I am granted the unequivocal right to use the visitors’ parking spaces on the Management Land, as described in Schedule 1 Clause 10. 5.1) The only restrictions on that right listed in the Transfer are that parked vehicles must not be “heavy or light goods or commercial vehicle caravan boat trailer or similar type of vehicle”, and cannot exceed “three tonnes gross laden weight”. 5.2) The Transfer does not contain any parking restrictions pertaining to permits or charges. It also does not grant any rights to the Management Company or any other party pertaining to parking restrictions or charges and has no provision for a third party to alter the Transfer in any way. 5.3) The intention of the Transfer was clearly to provide residents the right to use the visitors parking spaces. 6) The Claimant’s contract with the Management Company to enforce parking restrictions cannot remove or override the rights granted to me in the Transfer due to Primacy of Contract. Any contract the Claimant avers to exist due to the signage around the Management Land is irrelevant for the same reason. Thus, I cannot have entered a valid contract with the Claimant or be liable for charges for breaking any contract. 6.1) The Management Company has not even attempted to alter the terms of the Transfer to allow the Claimant to enforce parking restrictions on residents. Case Law 7) The case law in this regard is strong: the terms of a tenancy agreement or property title cannot be amended by the displaying of a sign, nor can private parking companies override existing contracts via contracts with landowners. I rely on the following cases in my Witness Statement: (i) Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] (Exhibit Q); (ii) Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] (Exhibit R); (iii) Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Exhibit S); (iv) Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E [2016] (Exhibit T). 8) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was dependent upon an undenied contract formed by signage. Indeed, ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other “legitimate interest” and there can be no legitimate interest in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces that they have an unequivocal right to. I believe that the facts contained in my skeleton argument are true. Costs claim: QUOTE In the County Court at Guildford Case No. BLAH Between UK Car Park Management Limited and BLAH ______________________________________ DEFENDANT’S COSTS ______________________________________ 1) I, BLAH, am the Defendant in this claim. The costs incurred by myself to defend this claim are listed below. Court Hearing Costs 2) Court hearing costs: (i) Half a day’s pay = £80; (ii) Mileage driving to court and back to place of work at government approved rate of 45p per mile = £2.25; (iii) Parking at BLAH car park at £1.30/hour for 3 hours = £3.90; Total: £86.15 Claimant’s Behaviour 3) I believe the Claimant has acted unreasonably in bringing this case to court. The reasons for this are listed below. 4) The Claimant knew I lived on the estate where they issued the parking charge notice and if they had acted with skill, care and diligence, they would have known that residents have a right to use visitor spaces, regardless of their contract with the landowner. 5) The Claimant’s reply to my appeal was laughable. They: (i) misinterpreted my core argument (deliberately or otherwise) that I had a right to use the parking space in question; (ii) admitted that “parking conditions are in place to stop unauthorised parking”; (iii) claimed that they “hold a legal contract that authorises [their] enforcement officers to monitor and maintain parking areas on behalf of the landowner”, which is irrelevant due to Primacy of Contract; (iv) did not explicitly state whether my appeal was accepted or rejected. 6) My reply to this letter, seeking confirmation of their decision, went unanswered. 7) The Claimant’s signage used the “British Parking Association Approved Operator” roundel without the BPA’s approval. I believe that the Claimant was therefore in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and Amendment 2014) at the time of the alleged parking infringement. 8) The Claimant is attempting to charge a ridiculous amount of interest (8%) on the money they believe is owed, given the Bank of England base rate has been between 0.5% and 0.75% since the parking charge was issued. Claimant’s Solicitor’s Behaviour 9) I believe the Claimant’s solicitor has acted unreasonably in bringing this case to court. The reasons for this are listed below. 10) Gladstones Solicitors’ robo-claims are against the public interest, demonstrate a disregard for the dignity of the court, and are unfair on unrepresented consumers. 10.1) Gladstones Solicitors’ generic claims process leads them to cite irrelevant court cases and fail to answer questions from defendants, including myself. They do not understand the nature of the case they are pursuing and are just trying to scare consumers into paying charges for which they are not liable. 11) Gladstones Solicitors’ Letter Before Claim was not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the PAP”). I replied asking for clarification of their intent, with very specific points. Their reply ignored my request for specific answers, so I sent an even more succinct request for clarification. This was ignored. 12) Gladstones Solicitors served the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which included two special direction requests. One was designed to give them an unfair advantage in court, the other was contrary to Civil Procedures Rules 26.2A(3). 13) Only 7 working days before the deadline to submit witness statements and evidence to the Court, Gladstones Solicitors incorrectly asserted that I was required to submit my Defence to them. In light of their previous behaviour and either their incompetence or wilful lies, I respectfully declined because it is not my responsibility to do so, especially given that they’d had two months to realise they hadn’t received it from the Court. 13.1) Gladstones Solicitors waited until 9th October 2018 to request my Defence from the Court, over three months after I filed it. 14) In general, I believe all of the above to be evidence of Gladstone’s incompetence and general disregard for the judiciary process, or of scare tactics designed to frighten consumers who are less inclined or able to defend their rights. Unreasonable Costs 4) Under CPR27.14(2)(g), I believe the facts listed in paragraphs 3-14 meet the threshold of “unreasonable” and would thus ask the Court to order the following costs incurred by myself to be paid by the Claimant: (i) 3 hours to research Defence at £19/hour = £57; (ii) 2 hours to write Defence at £19/hour (sent on 30th June 2018) = £38; (iii) 2 hours to research Witness Statement at £19/hour = £38; (iv) 4 hours to write Witness Statement and gather evidence at £19/hour (sent on 5th/6th September 2018) = £76; (v) 2 hours to write Skeleton Argument and this document at £19/hour = £38; (vi) 6 letters to the Claimant or their solicitor sent by first class post at 67p per stamp (between March 2017 and September 2018) = £4.02; (vii) Approximately 100 printed pages of documents for the Court and myself at 10p per page including paper and ink costs = £10. Total: £223.02 I believe that the facts contained in this costs statement are true. Are they OK? |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 10:18
Post
#164
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
8) as you will know, 8% is the approved rate. Remove point 8.
Dont repeat the @£19 per hour. Just make a single sentence stating all time is calcualted at that rate. Research defence - 3 hours WRite defence - 2 hours and so on. Dont be so wordy . |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 11:49
Post
#165
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
OK, will change that. Should I attempt to rebut their use of VCS v HMRC? If so, what's the best argument for this?
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:55
Post
#166
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes, post 158 actually answered it for you
They didnt have the rights in place, so cannot enforce the terms. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 13:19
Post
#167
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
Right but if I say they don't have the right, they will argue their contract with the management company is evidence that they do have the right. Then it just comes back to primacy of contract again doesn't it? Seems like the same argument ultimately but I've added it to the skeleton argument anyway:
QUOTE 9) The Claimant relies on VCS v HM Revent & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186, in which Lord Justice Lewison commented:
“The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made.” The Claimant had no right to offer me parking because I already had the right to park, and they did not acquire that right by the time the parking ticket was affixed to my vehicle. Thus, they have no consideration for their parking charge. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 13:56
Post
#168
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The MC arent the landholder, they need to prove the MC has that right. Thsts why it goes through a chain of contracts
You also need to point out there was no benefit gained so no consideration flowed, and without consideration there is also no contract. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 17:09
Post
#169
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
The MC arent the landholder, they need to prove the MC has that right. Thsts why it goes through a chain of contracts You also need to point out there was no benefit gained so no consideration flowed, and without consideration there is also no contract. Their contract with the management company lists them as the landowner, I'm not sure if that is sufficient evidence that they are though. I imagine the Transfer states that too but I'd need to double check. Is the following statement sufficient?: QUOTE The Claimant had no right to offer me parking because I already had the right to park, and they did not acquire that right by the time the parking ticket was affixed to my vehicle. Thus, there was no benefit gained by myself, the Claimant has no consideration for their parking charge, and the contract was invalid.
This post has been edited by DragonQ: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 17:17 |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 06:32
Post
#170
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Not invalid, it was never formed
I doubt the mc are. The landowner. They manage. They don't own Hi can confirm the landowner with form oc2. Costs. This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 06:32 |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 06:50
Post
#171
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
OK I'm gonna email these to the court and Gladstones now.
|
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 10:19
Post
#172
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
The judge dismissed the case and awarded me £135 in costs.
About 20 minutes after the case was due to start, I was called in. I asked where the other party was, the usher said they requested the case be decided "on the papers". I walked in and the judge said the case is very simple and rests on whether I have a right to park in the space. She then said that the Transfer is the key document and read out Schedule 1 Clause 10 (which I'd highlighted in advance), which says I have a right to use the spaces. She then said "so I'm dismissing the case". This took all of 60 seconds. We then spent about 5 minutes talking about costs. She said I could only claim costs incurred AFTER the Transfer was provided as evidence to Gladstones, because that is when they should have withdrawn the claim. Hence, I didn't get the full £380 I'd requested. The final thing I asked was when Gladstones asked to not be present, since they never told me. The judge said they always put a thing in their letter to the court alongside the witness statement basically saying "we might not turn up, in which case please arbitrate on the papers". I assume this is to cover their arses for when they don't think it's worth turning up. The judge said if they'd have turned up the judgement would've been the same. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 10:23
Post
#173
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
A win's a win.
Well done! -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 11:36
Post
#174
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
A win is a win, but it sucks you didnt get to see them pay out even more
I dislike the judges reasoning WIth any skill and care, the claimant would have KNOWN about the transfer. They chose not to perform their job properly, so should pay the price for iit. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 11:38
Post
#175
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
A win is a win, but it sucks you didnt get to see them pay out even more I dislike the judges reasoning WIth any skill and care, the claimant would have KNOWN about the transfer. They chose not to perform their job properly, so should pay the price for iit. She did ask me why I thought they'd behaved unreasonably and I started with exactly that, but she essentially said they had no evidence so it wasn't unreasonable until the point when they had evidence. I disagree too but it is what it is. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 11:43
Post
#176
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
They had no evidence becaue they didnt do their job properly in the first place
The judge is saying its ok to be crap at your job |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 14:15
Post
#177
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Yes. These companies perform no (I nearly used the word 'little' but 'no' is the accurate one) due diligence on these things and they ought to pay the price when it bites them on the backside.
-------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 18:38
Post
#178
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
The win is the most important thing.
Well done! |
|
|
Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 11:24
Post
#179
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 31 May 2011 Member No.: 47,126 |
So they haven't paid me by the judge's deadline. Should I speak to Gladstones or UKCPM directly?
|
|
|
Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 11:53
Post
#180
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Ho wlong over are they?
One email to Gladstones - who will be handling sending out the cheque - is reasonable, you dont have to do more. Say you expect it to be remitted no later than 2 days. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 20:30 |