CP Plus - Fraud?

[jpegnall]

So, I got a parking fine from CP Plus for parking in a station car park, the board with the sign at the car park is damaged and the terms and conditions normally contained within in are missing - so no issues on defending the claim. I would have ignored, however my gf owns the car and she didn't want the hassle so we sent them an e-mail explaining I was the driver; here is the correspondance - clearly fraud...

 

 

 

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Enquiries wrote:

Thank you for your email Miss -------. As the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued under the terms of Section 219 of the Transport Act 200, Railway Byelaws, Section 14, it is the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver, who is liable to pay the PCN. I understand that this is not the desired outcome; however, unless further evidence is provided, the decision on this matter is final. Furthermore, while any further correspondence contesting the decision will be noted and filed, I cannot assure you of a response unless fresh evidence is provided that would have a bearing on the decision. As a gesture of goodwill, I will place the account of £120.00 on hold for 14 days to allow time for payment to be made; however, if no payment is received within this period, the matter will be taken off hold and the recovery process will proceed. Regards Nigel GouldenCollections ManagerParking Collection Services

 

My response

 

Nigel

 

The notice to owner was not issued under the terms of Section 219 of the Transport Act and the procedures afforded thereunder are not included in the notice to owner. The notice to owner is explicit in the fact this is a contractual claim. Therefore either the notice to owner has been incorrectly issued, in which case it is void, or the statement below is a fraudulent misrepresentation which is a criminal offence.

 

Please could you clarify the position in writing.

 

 

Suprisingly we have had no response...

[jpegnall]

(Any views or experiences would be great, I haven't seen a recent CP Plus thread - not sure if they will go the full hog or not)

[Homer67]

I'm confused, is this a Parking CHARGE Notice or PENALTY charge notice - as it's on Railway land it could be either and the advice differs accordingly, please check and come back?

[jpegnall]

I'm confused, is this a Parking CHARGE Notice or PENALTY charge notice - as it's on Railway land it could be either and the advice differs accordingly, please check and come back?

 

 

This is a parking charge, we didn't actually get the initial parking ticket, but the first notice to owner letter clearly states that "A Parking Charge has been issued". I've never heard of CP Plus being authorised to issue real Railway Byelaw tickets, what they are doing is trying to claim the ticket is one issued under statute rather than a contractual claim. They have since replied insisting that the ticket was issued under the Railway Byelaws - they refered us to sections in legislation which have nothing to do with parking.

 

I'm not so much as concerned about where this is going, as concerned that they are incorrectly asserting they have the ability to issue a statutory penalty notice (negligently or fraudlently). Claiming that it is only the owner of the car that is liable is also wrong.... that is unless I am mistaken?

[green_and_mean]

This is a parking charge, we didn't actually get the initial parking ticket, but the first notice to owner letter clearly states that "A Parking Charge has been issued". I've never heard of CP Plus being authorised to issue real Railway Byelaw tickets, what they are doing is trying to claim the ticket is one issued under statute rather than a contractual claim. They have since replied insisting that the ticket was issued under the Railway Byelaws - they refered us to sections in legislation which have nothing to do with parking.

 

I'm not so much as concerned about where this is going, as concerned that they are incorrectly asserting they have the ability to issue a statutory penalty notice (negligently or fraudlently). Claiming that it is only the owner of the car that is liable is also wrong.... that is unless I am mistaken?

14. Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking

(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign.

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an

obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or

(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.

(4) In England and Wales

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

(i)

[jpegnall]

A pentalty... this is a parking charge not a penalty....

[jpegnall]

14. Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking

(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign.

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an

obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or

(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.

(4) In England and Wales

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

(i)

 

I don't see what your point is, this would be relevant if they had issued a pentalty charge right, wheras I've recieve a parking charge .... so are you saying CP Plus can contractually enforce a statute...

[lamma]

The enabling legislation creates no owner liability, only liability to 'Users'. And CP Plus is not a TOC.

[peanutsallergy]

This is a parking charge, we didn't actually get the initial parking ticket, but the first notice to owner letter clearly states that "A Parking Charge has been issued". I've never heard of CP Plus being authorised to issue real Railway Byelaw tickets, what they are doing is trying to claim the ticket is one issued under statute rather than a contractual claim. They have since replied insisting that the ticket was issued under the Railway Byelaws - they refered us to sections in legislation which have nothing to do with parking.

 

I'm not so much as concerned about where this is going, as concerned that they are incorrectly asserting they have the ability to issue a statutory penalty notice (negligently or fraudlently). Claiming that it is only the owner of the car that is liable is also wrong.... that is unless I am mistaken?

 

Post up a scan of the ticket.

 

Have a read of

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79481

[jpegnall]

Post up a scan of the ticket.

 

Have a read of

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79481

 

 

Thanks, we don't have the original ticket - we never recieved it, first we knew about it was a Notice to Owner, but the Notice to Owner refers to a Parking Charge (rather than a Penalty Notice), on the back it has an e-mail address for appeals and says if you were not the driver to inform them who the driver was and finally the notice states that a "Parking Charge has been issued because your vehicle was involved in breaching the stated terms and conditions of parking, which were clearly displayed and agreed to by the driver when your vehicle was parkied on private land managed by our client CP Plus Ltd.

 

As a backup we have photos of the car park, the board which should contain a poster with the details of the car park terms and conditions is broken and the poster missing so you can easily drive in and think you are parking in the car park belonging to the building site next door which is being demolished - there is certainly enough evidence to contest, however I don't want to waste my time if this is just a CP Plus [problem] rather than a real byelaw ticket...

[ericsbrother]

Railways Act allow them to fine you as they work for TOC. Still, you cannot disobey conditions that do not exist so get your evidence and send it to them saying that there are no terms, express or implied posted at that station and they are a necessity for any penalty to be applied and tell the TOC the same thing. Get your local paper to visit the defective sign and write a bit about unlawful penalties etc.

[lamma]

No. The Court may issue a penalty if it goes to court. There is nothing in the byelaws which permits a 'pay us so we don't prosecute' amount to be levied. Working for the TOC - IF they do - does not in and of itself convey the capacity to prosecute. Real byelaw tickets when they do appear come from the TOC. Not every TOC bothers with them. I forego describing the well known anomalies in genuine byelaw tickets and the well know ultra vires aspects.

[green_and_mean]

No. The Court may issue a penalty if it goes to court. There is nothing in the byelaws which permits a 'pay us so we don't prosecute' amount to be levied. Working for the TOC - IF they do - does not in and of itself convey the capacity to prosecute. Real byelaw tickets when they do appear come from the TOC. Not every TOC bothers with them. I forego describing the well known anomalies in genuine byelaw tickets and the well know ultra vires aspects.

 

Courts do not issue 'penalties' they fine you on a set scale of charges, parking penalties can be issued by the railway operator just as penalty fares can.

[lamma]

You are correct that the term is a "fine" in court. Would you care to give a citation for the second part of your sentence ?

[green_and_mean]

You are correct that the term is a "fine" in court. Would you care to give a citation for the second part of your sentence ?

 

Sect 14 of the byelaw

[lamma]

I suggest you also read Section 24 of the byelaws and the enabling legislation. Unlike CPE PCNs, offences have to proved in court. There is nothing in the byelaws which enables a demand for money on the basis of "pay us to stop us prosecuting" I leave as an exercise for you to discover the ultra vires part of the byelaws. And certainly CP Plus is not a TOC and will have no standing to prosecute in their own name.