Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Miss_J

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Clearly you are well versed on this topic and I am trying to keep up but it seems each time you hit me with more info I was uanware of lol. Let's break this down to help me out.... If the driver is the one who is sued and not the RK then why do so many companies threaten the RK by citing law that says they will be responsible if they don't name the driver? In this case with CP Parking, they keep talking about the driver only. How are CP Plus's letters not POFA compliant and does this nullify any claim they try to make in the two instances they're hassling me over? Obviously the double dipping is a big giveaway..........
  2. Why would a judge award the £100 if there's a lack of contractual liability? If they can end up getting the £100 anyway then why has the advice in this and other threads been to ignore or reply back by laughing in their face (especially when not POFA compliant and so they have negated their entire claim(?
  3. The threats were from the parking company themselves - not a DCA - and they looked very similar to the original letters that I uploaded: pictures of my car entering and leaving, close ups of my licence plate, times and dates of the offences etc. The difference is that they were titled 'legal action pending' and said as I had failed to respond to the original letter the deadline has passed to settle for their original charge of £100 and bumped the fee to £140 - saying that to avoid the matter being passed to their legal team (LOL!) and further charges that I must pay within 14 days or else they may get a DCA involved. Then they lied about a risk to my ability to get credit if they have to get their solicitors involved. Then they finished off by once again asking for the name of the driver. I gather it's all lies and they're telling flat-out porkies (adding charges and threatening more) and distorting the truth: credit can only be affected if a court applies a CCJ - not simply because their lawyers get involved (as there's no credit agreement in play). So your advice on this letter is also welcome. As is your idea as to why they've been chasing the driver from day one whereas most operators make it clear the RK is responsible and only request the driver's details as a chance for the RK to avoid the bill.
  4. PCN PCN.pdf Good to see I can upload now. Here are the 2 original charge notices. Identical except for different times and charge notices. I've also received a legal threat letter for both incidents now.
  5. I get: " You have used all of the attachment space you are allowed. Manage Attachments to free up space and when I click to manage it says: 'You have used 2.58 MB of your 500 kB attachment limit'. I am trying to upload is 443kb (a reduction from 4.95mb).
  6. I've used up my data allowance for this thread so I see no paperclip or 'choose files' option and nor do I see a way to delete what I've previously uploaded. I only have the option to insert an image from a URL or an existing, uploaded attachment.
  7. Not sure what is going on but I don't have the option anymore to upload an attachment (pdf) for you to see the original NTKs.
  8. Hi guys, Sorry for the delay. For both I've received a charge notice and reminder and for one of them, a 'legal action pending' letter. I've also received no help from Tesco. Notices: In: 10:27 - 16/01/2019 Out: 15:59 - 16/01/2019 In: 20:01 - 19/01/2019 Out: 10:32 - 20/01/2019 The legal action pending letter is claiming an extra £40 and threatening damage to my credit file but if I understand correctly, this is toothess smoke and mirrors: that they cannot add extra costs to a parking charge and the threat of credit rating damage is misrepresentation - implying they have the power to affect my rating for an unpaid bill (when it's not a credit-related issue) when in fact any affectation can only come from a judge awarding a CCJ? Legal letter text: "A notice was sent to you on 25/01/2019 and a reminder issued on 11/02/2019. To date the full payment has not been received and the deadline for valid representation against the charge has expired. To avoid this being passed to our legal department for further action and possible further charges you are required to pay the sum of £140 within 14 days of this letter. Your ability to obtain credit in the future may be affected if we have to take this matter to our solicitors for further action. If you were not the driver please forward the driver's nae and current address. If the vehicle has been hired plese provide a signed statement confirming the hirer's name and address and include a copy of both the hire agreement and their statement of liability". As per my previous posts, I am intrigued by them stating that only the driver is responsible rather than the RK and that they do not mention that the RK has a legal obligation to reveal the driver's details, whilst other agencies do say this in their letters. Thank in advance x
  9. Correction to my earlier message, their letters DO state I was the RK at the time but even so, they are still only chasing the driver whereas others companies say that unless the driver is named, they have a legal right to chase the RK for the debt. I edited times and dates because I didn't want to be identified if CP Plus snoop these forums.
  10. additional text re inserted ..dx They didn't use the word 'fines' I did. . PCN.pdf
  11. Howdy, I have two charges from a company called CP Plus for stays I made at a Tesco car park that was previously monitored by Parking Eye. On both occasions they are trying to do me for double dipping - a 5 hour stay and a 14 hour stay when on both occasions I was there for 15 mins max. Curiously, neither letter mentions POFA, nor states I am the RK, nor compel me under law to name the RK or driver yet both do state they don't know who is the RK, that only the driver is required to pay the fines ans this is weird because past fines from Parking Eye and Euro Car Parks say that the RK is obliged to pay and have named me as the RK: "The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge within the time frame stipulated above. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should provide us with the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to the driver". CP Plus also say: "we are writing to you because either you were the registered keeper at the time of parking, or the registered keeper has named you as the driver at the time of the event" but the driver (me) has never been in contact with them or grassed up the RK (also me). Do I even have to reply - do they have any leg to stand on - considering the flaws above and their clear lack of knowledge as to who the driver and RK are? I have taken pics of one of the letters if you want to see it.
  12. Thank for the heads-up re one ticket per thread. This is the 'standard' CAG response that I was told to send whenever I get a NTK: 'As RK I am not liable for this charge. Cancel this charge or alternatively issue a valid code for POPLA. At POPLA I shall be demanding a full breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that this charge must represent. I am under no obligation to name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the event. No further correspondence will be entered into.' What is a PAP? How do I fight on the basis that their ANPR is crap without them thinking I'm just blagging and without them coming back with 'our ANPR system never makes mistakes' thus getting nowhere in this dispute? If I send said snotty letter - is it going to be adequate considering the LBC they sent? Should I also point out they can't charge solicitor fees? I haven't looked at similar double-dipping and same car park threads (but I will) and I have no idea how to check with the land owners and the council re: paid-up contracts and panning permission so advice on how to do that is appreciated.
  13. Date of the infringement 16.09.2018 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] I don't know as I don't have the NTK anymore 3 Date received I don't know when I got the NTK but the Letter Before County Claim was dated 02.01.2019 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] I don't know 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? I don't know 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]Yes. I posted the standard CAG appeal via the online appeal process, as I mentioned in my OP Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up I received a standard rejection of appeal - as I have received in the past and which has usually made the company go away - that said they're in their right to charge me as detailed in their signage Ts and Cs 7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Woodfield Retail Park - Bury For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.BPA I don't have the NTK so cannot post anything except the Letter Before County Court. As I said before, it's doubtful I stayed in excess of 3 hours as I just pop to Tesco to do a bit of shopping every few days and even if I wanted to potter around town, I don't take anywhere near 3 hours not even at Christmas, so I'm pretty sure they inadvertently clocked me returning a little bit later on in the day - without realising I'd left already - and assumed I'd been there the full 3 hours. However, things have since taken a more sinister turn as I've received 2 further parking notices in the past week - for the same retail park - but coming from CP Plus (who I assume have taken over from Parking Eye). These are just 3 days apart, one stating a stay of 5 1/2 hour and the other - received today - for a whopping 14 1/2 hours and these are definitely clocking me for separate visits to the retail park. Your advice on handling these, too, is appreciated. Unlike Parking Eye, who only allow 2 hours free parking, CP Plus signage (that I photographed today and will upload here) allows 3 hours free parking but still, I was never there for 5.5 nor 14.5 hours and I think they are targeting me on purpose because I've swatted Parking Eye away on previous occasions. Regarding the Parking Eye infringement on 16th September 2018 they claim to have photographic evidence capturing me entering and leaving 3.5 hours apart. Funnily enough, their website is allowing me to appeal so should I enter the standard CAG 'I am the registered keeper, am under no obligation to name the driver, do not recognise the charge, require you to delete the charge, will take my case to POPLA if need be' or what? Miss J - Parking Signage.pdf
  14. Apologies for the delay but I've been trying to find all previous correspondence but I don't have any so the history is as follows: 1) they sent me an NTK 2) I appealed on their website 3) they rejected my appeal 4) they eventually wrote to me to say the debt is still outstanding 5) I ignored the letter 6) they eventually sent this letter before county court action I now attach the 10 page letter I got.
  • Create New...