CPM ANPR PCN Claimform - -THE ATLIP CENTRE EALING ROAD ALPERTON WEMBLEY LONDON HAO 4LW

[lookinforinfo]

We haven't seen the first PCN that you received. Could you please post it up as there are often mistakes on it that can make their case more difficult.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for posting your PCN. It does not comply with PoFA 2012 for two reasons.

 

1] they are supposed to enter your parking period but instead they have entered your time of arrival and exit which is not the same as you have to find a parking space;read the T&Cs before parking ' After you return to your car and make your way to the exit you may be held up by pedestrians crossing in front of you and there may be a queue to get out the car park which all takes time.

 

2] they missed out several crucial words which are a must in Schedule 4 s9 [2][f]. " (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)"

 

Therefore you as the keeper cannot be pursued for the alleged debt. Only the driver can be liable. As they do not know who was driving  they will have difficulties in taking anyone to Court.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I don't see where you went back to the gym to confirm you registered on that day. Is there a way of confirming that you did register with them even if you got the vrm wrong?

 

[lookinforinfo]

I have had a look at the contract you posted which pose a number of questions for CPM.

 

1] the address of 197 atlip road and the post code do not match should be HAO  4G SOMETHING NOT 4LW . So the contract has been wrongly drawn up and so does not represent the actual area which CPM say they control.

 

2] the contract does not give them permission to pursue through the courts

 

3] the contract does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice  13.1 or 13,3 since the signage in Atlip Road states there is no Grace period. [the Contract point 2  states "Signs will comp[ly with BPA guidelines at all times"].

 

4[ breaches contract point 4 since they do not have planning permission for their ANPR signs

 

5] Contract point 8 is wrong.since there is no alternative to applying to the DVLA for keeper information.

 

6] at the moment it cannot be assumed that the contract is valid as signatures etc have been redacted.

 

I have already stated that the PCN is not compliant which means that the alleged debt cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. The keeper cannot be pursued and they cannot assume that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

[lookinforinfo]

The contract was started with  BPA but now CPM are with IPC who have different Ts &Cs

.  The contract does not appear to give permission to CPM to take motorists to Court

By redacting the signatories to the contract we do not know whether they were signed by directors of the respective companies nor their names nor whether they were signed at all.

The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms act 2012. Schedule 4 Section 9[e] 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The creditor did not ask the keeper to pay the charge so the keeper is not liable for the charge. The Claim is addressed to the keeper so the PCN should be cancelled.

The Entrance sign has too many conditions on it to be able to read it while driving past the sign. There is no proof that the signs inside the car park coincide with the entrance signs so the PCN should be cancelled.

The £70 extra charge is not allowed because the amount is not specified in the signage and under PoFA the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signs.

It would have helped had you posted it up two days ago to give us a better chance of helping you.

However we all wish you well today.

[lookinforinfo]

Did the Judge allow  include the extra £70?

[lookinforinfo]

Might be worth a letter to the ICO admitting you did mess up but you don't think that they should have charged the additional amount since it is in breach of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 7[2][c] 

(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice;

The notice which is the sign in the car park-so  no more than £100. The extra amount they charge is usually the payment to the debt collector working on a no win no fee basis. The DCA obviously did not win as you ended up in Court so why are they being paid? 

Many Judges keep throwing out the spurious additional charge stating it is an abuse of process or attempting a double recovery and of course with the extra amount 66 to 70% addition it is certainly a penalty.

Up to you.............you might get the £70  refunded which would be a  win.