Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'asleep'.
Found 1 result
Hi there, I recently fell asleep in a services area because I was too tired to drive. I then received a Charge Notice from the lovely people at CP Plus. Below is the relevent information for my case. Any help would be very greatly appreciated. 1 Date of the infringement 11/2/18 2 Date on the NTK 20/2/18 3 Date received: Didn't note, just screamed profanities. 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? No, it mentions the Data Protection Act. 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? I sent this email to MOTO which they kindly forwarded onto the appeals email. Good afternoon. My name is ..............., I am writing to you because I recently received a charge notice from CP Plus. I work in the railway and I was working at an area called Grately. I was driving back to Leyton in London where I live when I became too tired to drive and pulled over at the services area in MOTO Heston Services. I remember I was around 45 minutes from home at that time but I was just too tired to continue safely. I fell asleep almost straight away and woke up leaving the services area and overstaying by 32 minutes. I’m just an honest working guy and felt it was dangerous to continue driving. I’m appealing to you to please cancel this charge notice as it was an sincere mistake made in the sake of safety. he notice reference number is ................... I can supply any other supporting information that you may require to verify my case. Thanks for reading my email and considering my situation. Kind regards, ........ 7 Who is the parking company? CP Plus 8. Where exactly? MOTO Heston East I'm looking at an appeals template and it has this as a possible argument in it: Your Civil Parking Notice constitutes an invoice for payment. Accordingly your invoiced charge must include an element of VAT. However, your civil parking notice does not state either a VAT registration number or an invoice reference number and so cannot constitute a lawfully valid demand for payment. Any success, with this approach?