URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 37823--------------------------------------------------
       CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: DolbyAtmos
       Date: September 22, 2024, 9:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       So i got myself a PCN from CPM through the post.
       Back story is i was dropping off reception child to school and
       running late. Decided to quickly park in the car park for a few
       mins but no bays available. So i parked in a way which would not
       obstruct other cars but it was not in a marked bay.
       School is 20 seconds walk from where i parked and school gate
       closes at 8.30am, so i was away from the car for 2- 3 mins.
       Literally just to see him into the school gate.
       I see parents always dropping kids off from this car park but i
       tend not to use it as exiting can take a lot of time due to
       queue of cars and it being a one way system to get out.
       Any thoughts if if it worth me appealing this fine ?
       CPM Letter
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/HM5J6Bo
       
       #Post#: 37832--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: b789
       Date: September 22, 2024, 10:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Pretty much bang to rights. What do the signs say?
       #Post#: 37835--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: b789
       Date: September 22, 2024, 10:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       On second thoughts, as there are over 70 "St Johns Church" in
       London alone, the relevant land isn't identified. That makes the
       NtK non compliant with PoFA. Not that that will hold any sway
       with CPM or IAS. It does however, blatantly breach the
       requirements of the Act.
       PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) is very specific in this requirement:
       --- Quote ---
       > The notice must—specify the vehicle, the relevant land on
       which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
       notice relates
       --- End Quote ---
       It also doesn't specify the "period" of parking that it relates
       to as there is no specified "period". Simply referring to the
       period as the "period immediately preceding the incident" does
       not satisfy that clause. As it was a manual patrol, there is no
       reason they couldn't have made an observation and issued an NtD
       instead.
       It's up to the OP whether they can be bothered to fight it. Most
       likely outcome with CPM is that it would end up as a DCB Legal
       issued claim that was eventually discontinued.
       #Post#: 37837--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: DWMB2
       Date: September 22, 2024, 10:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Agreed - that location is very vague! But as b789 correctly
       notes, you'd need to fight it all the way to a potential claim.
       #Post#: 38027--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: DolbyAtmos
       Date: September 24, 2024, 6:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you for all your responses, i am going to try and get some
       photos of the signage this evening.
       Sorry i apologise for my lack of knowledge but i am struggling
       with a couple of the terms used in your replies. What is NtK and
       NtD ?
       Also if i fight it all the way do i still get an option to pay
       the original £60 fine or it gets more complicated with DCB legal
       ?
       #Post#: 38030--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: DWMB2
       Date: September 24, 2024, 6:56 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       NtK = Notice to Keeper (issued by post to the registered keeper
       of the vehicle)
       NtD = Notice to Driver (affixed to the windscreen of the car -
       didn't happen in this case)
       The £60 is a discount available for prompt payment - the full
       charge is £100. It's your money so your choice, but I'd say if
       you're entertaining the prospect of paying, then pay now. If
       you're prepared to fight, you should be prepared to do so all
       the way to court if necessary, as they're unlikely to cancel at
       any of the appeal stages.
       #Post#: 38049--------------------------------------------------
       Re: CPM Parking Charge Notice- St Johns Church, London (Patrol)
   DIR By: b789
       Date: September 24, 2024, 8:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You should be aware that the £40 reduction is known as the "mugs
       discount". It is there to make life easy for the PPC. Having to
       del with appeals and more, they'd rather their victims think
       along the lines of "I'll just pay it and be done with it" rather
       than know their rights and fight it.
       You should be aware that this is likely to escalate all the way
       to a court claim, where you would ultimately win or, more
       likely, they would discontinue before any hearing, especially
       when they have a very weak case. Once any appeal is rejected,
       the "mugs discount" is gone. After 28 days, a debt recovery
       agent (DRA) will be in touch and will have added a fake £70
       charge to the original amount.
       DRAs can be safely ignored. They are powerless and cannot do
       anything, no matter how scary they make their letters sound.
       They are contracted on a no-win, no-fee basis, to try and scare
       the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into capitulating and
       paying into their scam.
       The DRAs are not a party to the contract the driver is alleged
       to have breached with the PPC. They should be ignored. Never,
       ever, ever, enter into communication with a DRA in a PCN
       dispute.
       The next phase, which may or may not come to pass, will be a
       Letter of Claim (LoC) giving you 30 days to pay or face a court
       claim. If/when a court claim is issued, it will have risen to
       around £255 which is made up of the original £100 PCN plus the
       fake £70 added charge plus £50 fixed legal costs and £35 court
       fee.
       In the worst case scenario, if your defence of a claim was
       unsuccessful, the fake added £70 charge would not be allowed and
       it would mean you owed the PPC a debt of around £185-£200. Even
       if the claim was list, there is no danger of a CCJ as long as
       the judgment amount is paid in full within 30 days. It is
       completely expunged from the record.
       However, the most likely scenario is that they will realise that
       you are not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and
       discontinue the claim and go off in search of other potential
       victims who know no better.
       So, you have to decide whether it is worth fighting or not.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1