C.U.P Enforcement - Multiple PCNs

[DonnaLL]

Over the last year or so within our work, parking has become a big issue, whereby we have had to start finding other places to park, either paying to park, or somewhere else.

Myself and a few others, have for the last 8-10 months (maybe even longer) have been parking “somewhere else”.

Up to now we have not had any issues, I mean there have been signs to advise that the site is monitored etc, (I don’t recall what it said exactly), but suddenly over 20 of us have received parking charge notices for C.U.P Enforcement, it looks like a new company has taken over this site and has started slamming people with fines.
Fines of £100 or £60 if we pay within 14 days.

Now my argument is this:
- Whilst it is not compulsory, nor is it a legal requirement to put a notice on the windscreen – surely one of these would have been enough to deter us
- A sign could have been placed to notify that terms were changing on that site
- Better signage could have been placed on site, as swapping a white sign for another white sign, isn’t really obvious

I have had a look on the companies website and have seen that these people can set up within a matter of days, so the company responsible surely could have had some advance warning or am I being unreasonable here?

Either way, there are over 20 of us, with at least 4 fines (as they were seemingly delayed in being processed, for example, PCN’s for the 2nd & 3rd Oct, were issued on the 7th Oct and we are still awaiting others.

So we are looking at 20 people x 4 fines @£100 each = £8000.

Yes, we are going to appeal this and claim that the sanctions imposed were unfair, but what would be the best course of action here:

- Appeal prior to the case going to court
- Offer to pay one and tell them to scrap the rest
- Wait for the court summons but still fight before it gets to that stage
- Say we will go to court individually – Which will be smalls calim and no doubt they will be represented by a right of audience
- Or do a group action, as the total costs will exceed £5000 and then they will have to pay for a solicitor as well as other cost – but obviously, we would need to be a 100% sure, that we could fight this.

Has anybody had similar issues that they can advise?

[ostell]

So have a look at POFA and see if those PCNs comply completely with the requirements to hold the keeper liable. Probably 9 will be relevant especially 9 (2). All the wording must be there. Perhaps post up one of the PCNs, suitably redacted but leave dates.

Edit you post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred, use "the driver..... " etc.

So if the old company name was still on the signs whent he PCN was issued then there can be no contract.

CUP may just be doing this by themsleves, they have not got a contract but saw an opportunity.

[DonnaLL]

Thank you for your response - I am reading through these terms now - thanks again however, please see the attached.

Photos taken of signs no more than 10 metres apart: as well as a copy of one of the PCNs issued

[ostell]

Respond with this but wait until all possible PCNs have been received so that they cannot change, without missing the appeal window.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act.

You have also failed to give the period os parking, as required by 9 (2) (a)

You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

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

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc

First class post with free certificate of posting from a post office.

The signs are also forbidding in that a contract to park is only offered to those with a permit. Here's some words I saved about this situation:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[DonnaLL]

Ostell, I am so sorry and please forgive me, but in simple terms, what does all of this mean, as I want to make sure I have this correct.

Many thanks.

[ostell]

As they don't/can't know the driver at the time, unless they have been told, then they have to comply with the requirements of POFA to be able to claim from the keeper. I gave you a link to the legislation, have a read of it.

[DonnaLL]

But what about the part where the site appeared to be governed by two different parties, one sign IPC and another BPA?

[ostell]

The BPA and IPC are two trade associations that the parking companies are obliged to be members of before they can get the keeper details from the DVLA (more to it than that but that will suffice).

It looks as though there are 2 different companies, Parking Patrol & C.U.P trying to compete. Is the boundary between the areas clear?

So work out who's sign was closest and if it was PP then your alleged contract was with PP and not CUP. You also tell them that there could not possibly be any contract as the sign says PP

Both signs are forbidding.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to authorised vehicles or cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit or unauthorised because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

My also understand that any alleged contract was not with yourself but with the company called Parking Patrol Office that are named operators on the sign and therefore you are strangers to the contract.

Notwithstanding the above you have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act.

You have also failed to give the period os parking, as required by 9 (2) (a)

You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

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

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc

[DonnaLL]

Many thanks for the template - which I will be sharing with colleagues with the potential for sending out.

In regards to your question, whilst the white sign was in front of my car, ever other lamppost had both, please see attached.

[ostell]

So add unclear and confusing signage to the POPLA appeal

[PaulMM]

Hello there, this is my first post on this forum.

I've just read this thread, having just had a similar experience with C.U.P. 3 PCNs over a 9 day period. As in the above case, they didn't leave any tickets on the vehicle so I kept parking there until the first notification arrived by post. How can that be right?
I've already appealed them all with my own photo showing the lack of road markings or a sign at the place parked at. Their own photos also show this.
I've just received responses to 2 of the appeals, both upholding the PCNs.
Not realizing it would be an error to do so, I gave my name as the driver (I'm the keeper as well)

Does anybody have any advice in this case? Thanks.

(A colleague appealed a PCN from them using the same photo evidence, during the same period entering himself as the keeper even though he was only the driver and his appeal was accepted.)

[ostell]

To avoid confusion could you start your own thread on this rather than hijack someone elses;

[PaulMM]

To avoid confusion could you start your own thread on this rather than hijack someone elses;

Oh, I had no idea that joining in a conversation on a specific topic was considered hijacking? I do apologise, but you are rather making the assumption that everybody is as experienced at posting on these things as you appear to be.

I can see you are a VIP so really should have known my place, or you could have politely informed me that I was contravening one of your rules.

[ostell]

You are asking for help not just joining the conversation and 2 or more incidents within 1 thread can get very confusing and result in wrong advice being given.

[joanne1977]

submitted reply in error, dont want to be told off but cant seem to delete, making me add text so adding this