CPMS Manchester lease car. Help me win! Options

[parkingparkingpa...]

Hello and thanks for your help.

The forum helped me avoid an unfair charge previously and I hope you can do it again!

• I have a leased car.
• Car was parked in a car park adjacent to a kids gymnastic place.
• Apparently the car park is in fact owned by nearby businesses and the car park is enforced.
• I received an email from the lease company 26/7/22 informing me that I'd received a parking charge from "Car Park Management Services", and they would pass on my details.
• I then received a letter "Notice to Hirer" which I've attached. It says 'date of issue 5/7/22' which I assume is the day of the alleged parking infraction. Date of post was 8/8/22
• In the letter (below) they state that several documents are enclosed including statement signed by hire firm etc etc etc. These were in fact not included.
• I haven't sent them anything back yet. I intend to use their appeals process, then IAS if not successful.

My first thought is just to appeal on the basis that they didn't supply the documents, which clearly puts them in breach of POFA para 13 section 2.
However the signage is also problematic for the following reasons, and perhaps I should just put all of this in the appeal?

There are different signs in the car park (see pics), some mention a charge of £60 without any further details and not at all IPC compliant (the red ones). Other signs mention £100.
The CPMS sign at the entrance to the carpark was not visible due to being poorly tethered to a pole (see pics), contravening the IPC code of practice "Signs should be constructed from material that is sufficiently robust to withstand normal"
external conditions
The CPMS signs are also not compliant with IPC code of practice for the following reasons
- CPMS is not identified as ‘The Creditor’
- IPC code of practice strates signs must "Advise drivers that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made for the Keeper’s details from DVLA". Although DVLA is mentioned, the timescale is not.

At this stage, would you advise just pointing out they are in breach of POFA para 13 section 2 RE the missing documents, or start pointing out signage issues?
Any other advice?

Thanks for all your help!

[Advertisement]

[Redx]

I would be using a typical not compliant with Pofa template by member Ostell, suitably adapted for a hirer appeal, no additions , no explanations , stay as a keeper hirer and only use Pofa compliance as a failure to comply and no hirer liability as a keeper

Personally, I would scan the forum for an already adapted hirer appeal template

No blabbing about who was driving , not to anyone, anywhere , not even a hint !

[parkingparkingpa...]

Thanks for the quick reply. Is there any danger of them just sending me the documents in the post in time for POFA to still be compliant ? Should I wait?
Also, is there any way they wouldn't accept this? And just say they did enclose the documents?

[DWMB2]

If they said they enclosed the documents when they did not that would be an obvious lie, which would be unlikely to go down well in court if the matter were to get there.

As for the chances that they won't accept it, almost 100%. Parking companies very rarely accept any appeal, regardless of merit. There's no money in accepting appeals.

[Redx]

Thanks for the quick reply. Is there any danger of them just sending me the documents in the post in time for POFA to still be compliant ? Should I wait?
Also, is there any way they wouldn't accept this? And just say they did enclose the documents?

So appeal as hirer keeper, just before the appeal deadline, say the day before , if its a weekday, or Friday if its a weekend

[ostell]

This one?

Sirs

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

I am the hirer/keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer keeper..

There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc.

Send so that it arrives on or just before day 21 so that the cannot reissue within the relevant period.

[parkingparkingpa...]

Thanks for help with this.
Quick update, company have as expected declined my appeal.
Have appealed through IAS. I know we consider it a 'kangaroo court' but just wanted to clarify if there is anything else to add at this stage.

My appeal to IAS:

I am the 'hirer' of the vehicle and I am in receipt of the parking charge notice.
I have no liability in this matter as the creditor has failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, but not limited to, the failure to supply documents mandated in section 14 (2) (a) of the Act.
On the basis, liability cannot be transferred to me, the hirer.

Their reponse: (Note that they have stated that I am the driver in their response in what looks like a 'drop down menu' selection. I have always declined to identify driver.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 26/09/2022 15:22:01.

The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 07/07/2022.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 05/07/2022.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
Signs clearly state allocated parking only. Sign is directly in front of the vehicle. All POFA requirements were met. Ticket was issued 05/07/22 and sent out to the registered keeper on 07/07/22 with a notice to hirer sent out 20/07/22 to the nhs trust. Another notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 08/08/22. The appellant was parked in breach of the terms and conditions displayed."

My questions are twofold and probably more about court than IAS as I am expecting them to side with operator.

1) Is my defence, (that they did not provide docs as per POFA e.g hire agreement, signed letter from hire company etc) solid, given that they state in their letter that the documents are enclosed (they weren't). This feels like it is their word against mine?

2) I wonder if I have other lines of defence. I can't pick apart their notice to keeper letters etc as I don't have them! I have previously acheived victory due to companies not sticking to timescales, however I find the timing of notices etc for hired vehicles very confusing and I can't work it out going back over POFA.

Thanks again for your help.

[Slapdash]

You could consider an SAR against your lease company. This may then establish what documents were released to PCM. If there was no hire company lease supplied to them then any "he did/she did" is put beyond doubt.

This post has been edited by Slapdash: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 - 06:02

[The Rookie]

My questions are twofold and probably more about court than IAS as I am expecting them to side with operator.

1) Is my defence, (that they did not provide docs as per POFA e.g hire agreement, signed letter from hire company etc) solid, given that they state in their letter that the documents are enclosed (they weren't). This feels like it is their word against mine?

2) I wonder if I have other lines of defence. I can't pick apart their notice to keeper letters etc as I don't have them! I have previously acheived victory due to companies not sticking to timescales, however I find the timing of notices etc for hired vehicles very confusing and I can't work it out going back over POFA.

1/ The Judge will decide if they were included as a matter of fact, they are unlikely to lie and claim they sent something they didn't, not least as they probably don't even have them to have been able to share them!

2/ PoFA defences in court are weak, if they ask who was driving and you have to reply in the affirmative then it's no longer relevant, it is useful at this stage to leave the question of doubt in their mind

[nosferatu1001]

Where in the text you copied does it state they included the required documents? There is no such explicit statement.

[hcandersen]

The OP is not in court an no-one is going to ask them 'who was driving'.

Anyway, before going any further the timeline set out by the creditor has let an elephant into the room and the OP needs to explain who's who and what's what.

The OP posted:

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
Signs clearly state allocated parking only. Sign is directly in front of the vehicle. All POFA requirements were met. Ticket was issued 05/07/22 and sent out to the registered keeper on 07/07/22 with a notice to hirer sent out 20/07/22 to the nhs trust. Another notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 08/08/22.

This is NOT pass the parcel. The creditor has a right to claim against the DRIVER but in the absence of knowing their details may issue a Notice to Keeper who in turn may rely on the provisions of 13(2) and provide the creditor with the three items of info set out in 13(2)(b):

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
©a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

The creditor wrote to the keeper who provided the above in respect of a NHS TRUST, not the OP.

As the NHS TRUST(probably the OP's employer) is NOT a hiring-company and does NOT hold (a)-© in respect of the OP then it follows that the creditor may not hold the OP - whatever their status is- liable by virtue of issuing a Notice to Hirer.

OP, over to you!

[parkingparkingpa...]

Where in the text you copied does it state they included the required documents? There is no such explicit statement.

The statement that they provided the documents is actually in the notice to hirer. I included a picture of it in my first post, it's on page 1.

[parkingparkingpa...]

The OP is not in court an no-one is going to ask them 'who was driving'.

Anyway, before going any further the timeline set out by the creditor has let an elephant into the room and the OP needs to explain who's who and what's what.

The OP posted:

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
Signs clearly state allocated parking only. Sign is directly in front of the vehicle. All POFA requirements were met. Ticket was issued 05/07/22 and sent out to the registered keeper on 07/07/22 with a notice to hirer sent out 20/07/22 to the nhs trust. Another notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 08/08/22.

This is NOT pass the parcel. The creditor has a right to claim against the DRIVER but in the absence of knowing their details may issue a Notice to Keeper who in turn may rely on the provisions of 13(2) and provide the creditor with the three items of info set out in 13(2)(b):

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
©a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

The creditor wrote to the keeper who provided the above in respect of a NHS TRUST, not the OP.

As the NHS TRUST(probably the OP's employer) is NOT a hiring-company and does NOT hold (a)-© in respect of the OP then it follows that the creditor may not hold the OP - whatever their status is- liable by virtue of issuing a Notice to Hirer.

OP, over to you!

Thanks for your input! To be honest I'm not completely certain what they mean by 'NHS trust', perhaps they are confused; the company which organises the lease is called 'NHS fleet solutions' and are a private company which provides a salary sacrifice car leasing scheme to public sector workers. They received an NTK and passed on my details as the hirer. Whick brings me gleefully to my next bit of news..

As Slapdash suggested I asked the lease company what info or documents they had sent and when, and they have emailed me confirming that they only provided my details and had not provided a copy of the hire agreement etc etc as required in 13 2 of POFA. Which I think is proof that CPMS has been dishonest from the outset; not only did they not enclose the docs to me, they neither had them nor asked of them from the lease company!

I think, gven that the operator has stated in their evidence that I am the driver despite having no basis for this I also need to carefully clarify this in the appeal, i.e my ongoing non-disclosure.

I might suggest that IAS remove CPMS from their membership given their obvious dishonesty!

This post has been edited by parkingparkingparking: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 - 21:07

[DWMB2]

Which I think is proof that CPMS has been dishonest from the outset

You may wish to exercise caution with how you word this sort of thing - the point is worth making, but worth making carefully. There's a difference between pointing out that they have said things that are incorrect (through incompetence/using unsuitable template letters), and accusing them of intentional deception... Intent can be hard to demonstrate.

[hcandersen]

OP, you hold the info, we can only act upon what's posted.

Thanks for your input! To be honest I'm not completely certain what they mean by 'NHS trust', perhaps they are confused; the company which organises the lease is called 'NHS fleet solutions' and are a private company which provides a salary sacrifice car leasing scheme to public sector workers. They received an NTK and passed on my details as the hirer. Whick brings me gleefully to my next bit of news..


According to your earlier accounts, 3 notices were sent by post by the creditor.

In law only 2 notices are permissible, the initial NTK and a single NTH.

Over to you. I wish you would deal with this point because if what you received is void, and I don't mean arguments about what docs were enclosed, then it's void, end of.

[parkingparkingpa...]

OP, you hold the info, we can only act upon what's posted.

Thanks for your input! To be honest I'm not completely certain what they mean by 'NHS trust', perhaps they are confused; the company which organises the lease is called 'NHS fleet solutions' and are a private company which provides a salary sacrifice car leasing scheme to public sector workers. They received an NTK and passed on my details as the hirer. Whick brings me gleefully to my next bit of news..


According to your earlier accounts, 3 notices were sent by post by the creditor.

In law only 2 notices are permissible, the initial NTK and a single NTH.

Over to you. I wish you would deal with this point because if what you received is void, and I don't mean arguments about what docs were enclosed, then it's void, end of.

Thanks. To be honest it is quite a nightmare to work out the paper trail. I'm waiting for some more information to come back to me but I think there may have been 4 letters from CPMS!

1) To the registered keeper, a leasing company
2) NHS fleet solutions (who are the sort of brokers)
3) An NHS trust, who are the hirers
4) Me, having been provided the care as the form of a 'fleet car' (it's not really a 'company car' in the traditional sense, they are providing cars for private use via a salary sacrifice scheme...)

At each step, the providers are saying "well yes we know about that car but entity/trust/individual X has responsibility for it".

I take your point that it is not 'pass the parcel' and this approach is not supported by the law, but how exactly would you structure a defence around that?

Thanks

This post has been edited by parkingparkingparking: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 - 13:12

[hcandersen]

4) Me, having been provided the care as the form of a 'fleet car' (it's not really a 'company car' in the traditional sense, they are providing cars for private use via a salary sacrifice scheme...)

The point regarding your notice not including the mandatory items in the form of a direct relationship between you and the 'keeper' and there being countless notices are opposite sides of the same coin.

They cannot hold you liable because you are not the hirer of the vehicle from the keeper and the keeper's liability may only be avoided if they are a hiring company with a contract of hire with you. In this case as you understand it the following applies:

Keeper: - the name of the company;
Hirer: - the name of the NHS Trust.

You approach started off on the wrong foot with:

My appeal to IAS:

I am the 'hirer' of the vehicle and I am in receipt of the parking charge notice.


No you are not.

CPMS even acknowledge this:

Ticket was issued 05/07/22 and sent out to the registered keeper on 07/07/22 with a notice to hirer sent out 20/07/22 to the nhs trust. Another notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 08/08/22.


Dear Sir,
I refer you to the creditor's statement to the tribunal, in particular the following:

Ticket was issued 05/07/22 and sent out to the registered keeper on 07/07/22 with a notice to hirer sent out 20/07/22 to the nhs trust. Another notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 08/08/22.

As you know, the keeper may avoid liability for a parking charge if one of the following applies:

The creditor has the right to enforce against the driver but does not know their particulars and,
The keeper is a hiring company, has hired the vehicle to a hirer who has accepted liability in writing and provides the mandatory documents to the creditor.

There is no provision under the Act for the hirer to avoid liability by claiming that they themselves have hired the vehicle to another party. The Act limits its provision to two defined parties: the keeper and the hirer of record. Any subsequent arrangements and liabilities would be the subject of contract law and sit outside the scope of the Act.

The creditor in this case has stated that they issued two Notices to Hirer, the second of which was addressed to me.

I respectfully submit that this so-called Notice to Hirer is void and of no effect as it sits outside of the Act's provisions (Schedule 4, para. 13) which allow the keeper to avoid liability.

I would also draw to your attention that notwithstanding my notice's reference to 'documents included', it did not contain the mandatory documents, I think for the very good reason that the keeper has no hiring agreement with me and therefore none of the mandatory documents exists. I do not know how the creditor thought they could finesse this point with you because they would of course have to submit these documents as part of their proof and you would surely have noticed their flaws.

[parkingparkingpa...]

Update. As expected IAS have not upheld my appeal. Have pasted the IAS comments below (minus the generic preample).

Question is what next? Have not received any communication from the carpark cowboys yet, but presume it will come. Ignore etc?

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking in a bay other than the bay allocated will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that the Operator has failed to comply with POFA. I fail to see how. The Appellant has identified themselves as the hirer of the vehicle.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and not confirmation this was not in a bay allocated to the vehicle. The appeal is dismissed."

[DWMB2]

What next is up to the parking company. Probably a barrage of letters from debt collectors, which you can ignore. Keep an eye out for anything marked "Letter Before Claim" / "Letter Before Action" or similar, within the next 6 years, as this would mean they're taking the matter to court.