CPS UK/Gladstones PCN Claimform - Spring Street, on 02/03/2022 ***Claim Discontinued***

[lookinforinfo]

Before sending out claim forms they are supposed to recheck with the DVLA that they address has not changed.

When you changed your address did you do it as the driver or for the vehicle. without telling them to change both addresses.

 

It won't go against you in Court but it may if you don't respond to the Claim form. Please fill out the form above and we will help you complete the process. Could you also please post up the original PCN so we can see if they have a case against you.

[lookinforinfo]

The entrance sign should include the name of the creditor and the IPC logo as well as telling motorists that the land is private and is subject to terms and conditions per the IPC Code of practice. None of those requirements are present at Spring Street in breach of the IPC Code.

 

[lookinforinfo]

It's a car park so we don't need to see pictures of cars. We need to see the signs in the car park to see whether they can form a contract partly because of the size of the script and we also need to see what their T&Cs are well as who the creditor is.

 

As well we need to see the terms that are on the pay machine as they are the ones that the motorist is agreeing to by paying. 

I am sorry the opening words sounded rather harsh when they weren't meant to be. Plus we didn't tell you the things we were looking for there so how would you know.

 

It will be good when we can see the original PCN as I am hoping that  it will be non compliant. Therefore you as keeper will not be liable for the alleged debt. Only the driver is responsible and they do not know who that is. So as long as you do not appeal and perhaps reveal the name of the driver, they have very little chance of winning.

[lookinforinfo]

Relax TS. Do not pay a penny. In order to get you to pay the PCN MUST comply with PoFA2012. It does not. If you read all  the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 section 9 you will see why.

 

More specifically sub section [f] makes it clear where they have gone wrong by deviating from the PoFA script.

f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

You will note that CPS states that the keeper becomes liable if the amount is outstanding after 28 days. But 28 days from when-the date the PCN was issued, the date you received it or two days after the PCN was issued [with allowances made for bank holidays].

 

PoFA is quite specific that it is 28 days from when the PCN was given. It may be a small point in itself but at the start of section 9 the Act states that this section must comply with the requirements mentioned below.  

The second thing is that they creditor can only claim keeper liability if all the applicable conditions are met. yet they miss out that very  statement in their own PCN!

 

Also there is no provision in PoFA for any extra charges over and above the amount stipulated on the PCN yet CPS seem to think that they can add extra charges which have been described by many judges as an abuse of process.

 

So keep your money in your pocket.

 

Especially as you can point out that your car was not parked in HU2 8JX at the time they claim since that Postal address relates to Portland Street Hull.

 

If  you check the post code for Spring Street Hull  in postcode finder you get HU2 8RB, HU2 8Rd and HU2 8RA. If you have read section 9, almost at the start it states that the PCN must specify the relevant land on which the car was parked. As they have got the postcode wrong that is a massive fail.

[lookinforinfo]

 

If you live closeish to the car park it would help to spoil the crroks day if you had photos of their actual signs and positioning . When the judge sees the discrepancies that will cast doubt on the rest of their testimony especially considering they have averred that their Witness statement is true.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry you have taken enough pictures of the signage already and they should be more than enough. First the entrance sign is a joke it should show that it is a paying car park;  that the T&Cs are inside the park; that there are ANPR cameras  and it should include the logos of  CPS and the IPC to" add confidence to the motorist".  They are so funny.

 

As Nicky Boy has already mentioned on their signs the T&Cs are in yellow. There are three of them. The ones in blue are not part of the T&Cs so there is nothing that says you have to pay £100 at all nor can they add on additional fees.  And while the driver didn't apparently pay to park that could have been because of the lack of information at the entrance which was hardly offer to trade let alone a notice instructing drivers they were entering private land which had a contract attached.  In any event, if the driver did not pay, they would not have entered into a contract anyway and they would be treated as trespassers which only land owners can deal with not CPS.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You could gently point out to the Enforcement team that not only has UKCPS avoided paying Hull Council for the planning application, they have taken tens of thousands of pounds out of the local community in the way of punitive charges illegally . 

 

It seems some sort of retribution is called for-at a minimum their signage should be covered over until permission is granted. And they cannot issue PCNs until the planning permission is resolved.

 

That may encourage motorists to attempt to reclaim sums paid.

[lookinforinfo]

You'd think. 

But other parking companies who have even been banned by the DVLA  continue issuing tickets during the ban then put them through when the ban is cancelled. And the dimwits at the DVLA give them our data.

[lookinforinfo]

It should give you more confidence then when I tell you that Mickey Mouse goes around Disney land wearing a Gladstones watch. They are so inept that even in Hollywood they know of their reputation.

[lookinforinfo]

Just to add to the questions over the validity of the contract -JS Management & Consultancy Services Ltd changed their name to Complete Parking Services [CPS UK} Ltd on 26/10/2018 which was 9 days after the contract with Ferensway was drawn up.

https://www.companieslist.co.uk/prev/10212042-js-management-consultancy-services-limited

 

As already pointed out the two companies above are  completely different companies from Complete Parking Services Ltd  who signed the contract, even though several of the directors were on the Board of both companies. 

 

Possible breach of GDPR.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Totally useless.

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I think the more important factor for  Ferensway to deal with is the matter of their contract. 

Ferensway are co-signatories to a contract signed by one company but administered by a completely separate entity that are claiming they have a contract with Ferensway to obtain money from motorists. {Explain the difference between CPS ltd and CPS [uk]Ltd which wasn't formed till  almost a fortnight after the Ferensway contract was signed.

 

As you are being taken to Court by CPS [UK] Ltd you will be bringing this out in Court which may be unwelcome publicity for Ferensway especially as it will leave many motorists liable to bring cases against CPS [UK]Ltd  perhaps claiming that they were defrauded since there was no contract with which to pursue them.

To avoid such publicity it might be advisable to consult with CPS to cancel your ticket as this is a serious matter. It is open to question whether Ferensway would want to continue using them as  a partner when they are also breaking the Law by not having the necessary planning permissions in place with the local council for the erection of their signs and ANPR cameras-which is a criminal offence under the Town and Country [Control of Advertisements] Regulations 2007.

 

After that you could write to CPS [uk] suggesting that as they breached your GDPR knowing that there was no valid contract a payment of £2000 would prevent you taking them to Court and  thus alerting other motorists who have been duped into reclaiming their money from you.

 

Then you have complaints to the DVLA and the SRA as well as the ICO if you feel so inclined. You could try the IPC as well. 

[lookinforinfo]

Dave I think your letter is a little over the top. We are not after the hotel group but CPS [UK]ltd and we would like the PCN to be cancelled by the hotel who may have no idea that CPS ltd and CPS [uk] Ltd are totally different companies albeit two of the directors are directors of both companies.

JS Management have pulled a stunt on the hotel and on motorists. We do not know who actually signed the contract for CPS but it could not have been done by JS management under the guise of CPS [UK} because that company  had not been formed then. But as these are two different companies they are not interchangeable just because they share the same directors. 

 

 

@FTMDave  "So the original company that signed the contract, and which are suing you, still exist, albeit with a different name."

No the original company did not sign the contract. It may have been a director of JS Consultancy  who signed but if it was signed by  a director it was signed by a director from CPS ltd as CPS [UK] ltd did not come into existence for more than a week later.

 

The company that is pursuing TS6014 is not the company with which Ferenham have a contract with. The parking company knows that but as it appears to be a fraudulent scheme they probably wouldn't have wanted the hotel company to know. 

 

So to get the ball rolling a nice letter to the hotel to get the PCN cancelled followed by breaches of GDPR etc etc to follow would seem a better way to play it. if we want to get it all out in public then go all the way to Court and keep quiet at the moment. Decision for TS.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

The contract must surely be with the parties who signed it.

It cannot be JD Management because the contract is in the name of CPS Ltd.. it cannot be in the name of CPS (UK) Ltd because that company was not in existence then.

So all motorists who have been pursued for breaching the contract by CPS (UK) Ltd need not have paid.

Not should TS .

We do not know if the mix-up over the company names was deliberate or an honest mistake. Not whether the hotel knew about it. All I do know is that CPS (UK,) Ltd do not have a contract with the hotel so they have breached the GDPR of TS.

How they want to play it is up to them

 

[lookinforinfo]

5 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

Sorry my suggestion opened such a large can of worms guys.

Not at all. I  don't think I would have picked that up and the contract is what will mean TS will get off regardless if everything else is 100% with their case.

[lookinforinfo]

Instead of writing to Ferensway you might be better writing to {CPSUK} ltd advising them that they have no contract with Ferensway  since the contract was signed by Complete Parking Services and so they have breached your GDPR. 

You suggest that to avoid looking stupid in Court plus raising the possibility of motorists claiming their money back that they  cancel your PCN.

 

I was going to say that you would also be pursuing them for £750 for breaching your GDPR but on reflection i  waiting for their reaction to your letter. because the signatures on the contract were redacted we do not know who signed it  may be a safer way of doing it.

 

Once you have confirmation of their intentions you can plan your own play accordingly.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I agree that you put the contract first.

 

The contract that you have is not with the company issuing you with the PCN.

 

It is for a completely different company that has closed down so even they do not have a contract with the alleged land owner.  But [CPSUK.} have assumed the position of "the Company" in what would appear to be a false manner since they have a similar name.

 

It might be less confusing for the Judge if you explain that JS Consultancy.... changed their name to Complete Parking Services {CPSUK} on the 26th October 2018 which was nine days after the contract was signed by Complete Parking Services and the contract appears to be signed by Complete parking Services Ltd and not JS Consultancy.....

 

On top of that the contract does not appear to allow motorists to be taken to court. And where the signatures are blanked out, it does not seem that a Witness actually signed it. Indeed there might be no signatures at all.

 

As such if the Judge understands the Law that should be sufficient to throw the case out.

 

You would of course have a strong case for a breach of your GDPR......................

[lookinforinfo]

I think I said my bit about the contract on post 218 .