South West trains station and the private company was CP Plus Byelaw section 14

[Guarantee]

a ticket issued by CP Plus at a non-London Southwest Trains car park.

 

 

An appeal was made to CP Plus (as per the only option on the ticket) by email but was worded not to identify the driver.

 

 

The grounds were that credit card payment was not accepted by the machines on that particular day.

This may have been stated on the display of one but definitely not all machines.

Payment by phone was also an option but unfortunately wasn’t a possibility with a battery out of charge.

 

 

The appeal was unsuccessful and pointed out that payment through the ticket office was also an option

and in any case payment is the driver’s responsibility.

 

 

However, in haste, trying to get to work on time, having wasted much time trying each ticket machine twice, this was missed.

The instruction was to pursue the matter with Southwest trains or pay up.

 

 

The ticket includes the paragraph:

 

‘All vehicles are parked subject to the Railway Byelaws and any breach may result in prosecution

 

 

Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000-Railway byelaws, section 14 under which CP Plus has the lawful authority to issue this Penaly for £80 for the following reason: …’.

 

The original parking charge was £3 and the discounted fine is £50 rising to £80 + £40 after 14 days.

 

 

Any advice welcome for a non-repeat offender.

 

 

A court case/poor credit rating would be most inconvenient so is it best to pay up?

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Would you be able to tell us which station is involved please? It might help the guys to advise you.

 

My best, HB

[Guarantee]

I would rather keep that confidential but it is a South West trains station and the private company was CP Plus - I hope that helps.

[dx100uk]

I suggest you read this and the peppy thread its all a spoof to fool you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?392510-CP-Plus-Fraud

[Guarantee]

Thanks for your help. It looks like it can go either way e.g. on the pepipoo thread, it looked like it had the potential to become unaffordable?

[dx100uk]

Thanks for your help. It looks like it can go either way e.g. on the pepipoo thread, it looked like it had the potential to become unaffordable?

unaffordable? dx

[ericsbrother]

CP plus are trying to bamboozle you into paying up.

 

It is either a claim for breach of contract using the provisions of the PoFA 2012

or it is a penalty under Byelaw 14, which is the railway company taking you to court, not a bit of each or both.

 

The usual thing is that CP will threaten court under byelaw 14

but that means that they arent entitled to claim anything up front as railway property isnt "relevant land" under the PoFA.

this means they are telling porkies.

 

The appeal should have a POPLA code if they are claiming money for themselves so use it

and appeal on the grounds of the car park not being "relevant land"

and that CP are only agents so have no rights to claim anything in their own name.

 

Thirdly, as they are agents their demand cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as it is the railway company that would suffer any losses, not them.

[Guarantee]

The thread seemed to culminate in a court summons dx :O(

[Guarantee]

Thanks ericsbrother - I understand there are only certain ground on which to appeal through Popla so could that be why they are suggesting I appeal to South West Trains?

[ericsbrother]

To answer about the court summons

-yes, that is possible but it wont be instigated by CP Plus

and if that is the chosen path neither the railway company nor CP get a penny as it will be a fine.

 

As to your second question, they are doing this to cause confusion.

 

 

The money that are asking for is not a fine,

they dont have the powers to fine you nor apply a penalty .

 

 

It is just money in their pockets which is why they dont want you to go to POPLA

because if you choose that route then they will lose and the railway company cannot prosecute as they have agreed to allow CP to act for them so double indemnity.

 

The railway company has a choice

it can invoke byelaws 14/15 or it can allow its agents to try and get you on breach of contract as per a parking charge

but the 2 actions are mutually exclusive as they are executed by different entities.

[Guarantee]

Hi Ericsbrother and thanks for your help. On what grounds could an appeal be made to POPLA in this case?

 

• The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed.

 

• The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid

 

• The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.

 

• I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you had paid to park the vehicle in the first place (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) is not in itself a valid ground of appeal.

 

Also, if it went to court, do we have an idea of what an average or a maximum fine would be. Obviously, the risks do have to be weighed up here.

 

Sorry dx, didn't read your post properly about the peppy thread being a spoof and I'm of a jumpy disposition ...

[Guarantee]

Have just requested a POPLA code. Any thoughts on whether I should also appeal to South West Trains?

[ericsbrother]

No, do not contact them at all otherwise they may well invoke the bylaw just to punish you.

[ericsbrother]

We will help you with the POPLA appeal when you get that far, you dont have to tke any notice of the reasons you are quoting, they are made up by the parking co's and are not law.

[Guarantee]

Thanks Ericsbrother - I will let you know when I get the POPLA code.

[Guarantee]

Is it the case that on winning a case with POPLA, South West trains could then prosecute me as the registered keeper using byelaw 14?

[DragonFly1967]

Is it the case that on winning a case with POPLA, South West trains could then prosecute me as the registered keeper using byelaw 14?

 

I'm fairly sure that that would be seen as an abuse of process. They can't have two bites at the cherry just because they don't like the taste of the first.

[Old Snowy]

Was the ticket directed at the driver or the keeper of the vehicle?

 

There is absolutely no provision whatsoever for the driver to be made subject of a penalty charge within the terms of the byelaws.

 

 

However, a vehicle keeper may be liable for a charge if the details of such a charge were displayed in the area.

That said, why - if only the keeper is liable - would you post details of it on the vehicle and risk it not getting to the right person?

 

The truth is, as ericsbrother has already posted, that were you to be prosecuted neither CP+ nor SWT would see a penny of any fine

that may or may not be imposed because that would be destined for the Treasury.

 

 

I accept that an order for costs may be made but that can only cover SWT's prosecution costs

- not a payment to CP+ and certainly no profit element.

And CP+ will not be issuing these tickets for the benefit of their health.

 

Steer well clear of SWT but press CP+ for POPLA.

 

Were any action to be taken with regard a prosecution then SWT must apply for a summons

- "lay an information" - within 6 calendar months of the alleged offence.

Anything outside of that and they are out of time.

 

 

Provided they have done so within that period they can take their time, to a degree,

in serving it although any decent DJ is going to apply his molars to their testicles if they drag their heels too much.