CPM > Gladstones Letter Before Action, Photos do not support their claim Options

[ParkingMishaps]

Happy Saturday all,

CPM issued a 'Parking Charge Notice' 15 days after they allege our vehicle was parked whilst 'Not Displaying a Valid Permit.
Amount due £100, discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days.

Letter contains two photos of a car parked at night (front and back), both without the registration in view.
Front facing photograph contains what resembles the A4 visitor parking permit issued to residents.

The letter was ignored.

29 days later (44 since the alleged incident) we receive a 'Formal Demand' letter.
It is said that as they do not know the driver's details they have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper.
The overdue charge will increase to £149 in the first instance of further action.

A templated response is sent requesting all photos including a dated photograph of the signage - the driver's details were not communicated. (I do not have the letter to hand right now).

CPM respond saying our appeal has been denied.

The letter includes three photos.
The first photo is of the rear of the car in a different aspect ratio to the one sent in the PCN with the bottom of the image cropped out with the same timestamp.
The second is of the front, same issue with the aspect ratio and cropping however the timestamp is 20 minutes later.
The third photo is a close up of the front number plate with a timestamp consistent with 3 of the previous 4 photos.
There is no photo of the signage.
There is no parking bay identifier in any photo.

I have a photo of the signage which had 3 bullet points as follows:

A VALID UK CPM PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN THE FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES
vehicles displaying bay or area allocated permits must park in the corresponding bay or area

YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY
NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS / YELLOW LINES / PAVED /
HATCHED OR LANDSCAPED AREAS

IF UNSURE PLEASE SEEK FURTHER ADVICE FROM CPM OR REFRAIN FROM PARKING

by entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all terms and conditions
breach of ANY term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a PARKING CHARGE OF £100

(more small print about 28 days and a telephone number 0845...)


Back to the letter:

... The decision has been made on the basis of:

- The permit that was displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle did not correspond to the parking bay. All permits have the bay allocation printed on them and can only be used in the corresponding bay. Vehicles parked in a bay with an incorrect permit will be deemed invalid.

- Signage clearly stats "A VALID UK CPM PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN THE FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES /VEHICLES DISPLAYING BAY OR AREA ALLOCATED PERMITS MUST PARK IN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA"

- The photographic evidence collected at the time of the contravention supports the above statement.

- It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the parking restrictions are fully adhered to. The signage is clear within the area and states the terms for parking. If you were unsure you should have refrained from parking or contacted CPM for further advice. The control centre's telephone number is located on all signage.

- Parking in someone else's allocated space can cause them a great deal of inconvenience and for this reason CPM will continue to actively monitor the car park to ensure residents can gain access and have exclusive rights to their parking bays.

- Like any modern device our camera are synchronised with GMT, this automatically stamps our images with the date and time it was taken.


My understanding of the letter is that they are alleging the vehicle has been parked in a residents space with a permit that doesn't match that bay (i.e. another resident's permit or a visitor's permit).

driving down the main straight of this area you have flats to your right with visitor parking bays running nose to tail along, with pavement alongside that, and then flats alongside that. Interrupting the bays are entrances to the resident's bays to the rear of the flats.

On the left-hand side are townhouses, junctions to roads and parking bays but not as many.

What has since come to light is that bays are marked by a small tile on the ground, middle of the bay but placed where the bay meets the pavement. The bays on the lefthand side do not have a pavement but the tiles are still placed middle of the bay where the bay would meet the pavement.

Parking in this area, day or night it wouldn't be obvious that the bays are even allocated - vistor's or otherwise.

I digress...

That letter was ignored.

DRP Debt recovery then sent us a letter to collect payment of £160 (not quite the £149 they mentioned in the initial letters).

That letter was ignored.

Almost a year after the initial alleged incident Gladstones solicitors have sent us two letters before claim, one last month and one this month.
The letter reads:

... We refer you to Paragraph 2.1© of the PAP which obliged the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.

Please pay or reply before <redacted> of December 2018. Any reply received after this date may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.



If you have survived until the end I thank you!

Should I reply to Gladstones?
I have seen that they have taken people to court.
If I am to reply, should I give them a defense?

Thanks for your time
ParkingMishaps

[Advertisement]

[cabbyman]

What does the lease say about parking?

[SchoolRunMum]

You are at LBC stage.

The usual advice is to send the PPC a SAR by email (see their privacy page, I know UKCPM have a DPO email for data queries). And to send the solicitor a holding letter like you see on every other UKCPM thread. No need for us to type it out again as all cases proceed in exactly the same way and the holding letter/SAR process has been done to death this Autumn.