Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

IJB1210

CP Plus - POLPA Code received - what now?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1206 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

On 26th June we parked in Wetherby Services, arriving at 0153hrs and left at 0456hrs. We genuinely didn't see the signs regarding parking regulations, 2 hours free parking etc. It was dark, we were on unfamiliar territory, the driver and passenger were both very tired.

 

 

We received a Charge Notice dated 6th July, with photographic evidence of us arriving and leaving. Charge is £60 if paid within 14 days, or £100 thereafter. On 9th July, we wrote to them, saying that the registered keeper did not believe that CP Plus had the authority to make contracts and demand monies in their own names. Posted Special Delivery.

 

 

Letter dated 23rd July received on 27th, saying amount outstanding now £100. In payment not received within 14 days an initial debt recovery charge will be incurred.

 

 

Letter dated 27th July, received today (30th) acknowledging and rejected our appeal, and providing us POPLA code. We now have another 14 days from date of letter to pay the £60, or thereafter £100.

 

 

We understand that we exceeded the 2 free hours, but £60 seems excessive, given that we were parked in a designated space, and there was plenty other spaces free for others to park if needed. We didn't actually intend to stay as long as we did, but having driven for 5 hours and encountered numerous road closures and diversions, we fell asleep for longer than planned. We did use the toilets at Wetherby, although didn't buy anything in the shops given the time of day.

 

 

Where do we go from here? Is there a template letter? Or is it a case of writing to them, outlining that we genuinely didn't see the parking restriction signs and appealing to their better natures, based on the fact that the driver stopped in the interests of road safety, as his passenger has cancer and needed to rest. All true. Todays letter gives us the POPLA code and web address to contact, also says if we prefer to correspond by post to contact their appeals office and they will send the necessary paperwork. Is it best to correspond by post, rather than electronically?

 

 

Hope someone can assist, even if it is just to say "stump up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your appeal to POLA should be on the follwing grounds:-

1 the appellant does not believe that a contract exists between the landowner and CPP that allows CPP tomake claims and take civil action for debt in their own anme and put it to strict proof that such a contract exists.

2 The appellant does not believe that CPP has the requisite planning permissions for their signs and puts it to strict proof that such permission was granted under the 2007 Act.

3 In any case, when entering the parking area at 1 in the morning the signs were not visible to the driver at all and therefore no consideration could be given to any offer contained in the signage. This means no contract was formed so cannot be said to have been broken.

4 the amount claimed does not represent the losses incurred by CPP for parking in a free car park that they have no duty to maintain so even if a contract has been created the amount claimed is an unlawful penalty charge rather than money owed as damages due to a breach of contract.

 

all that you have mentioned is mitigation and will not win the day so dont bother with it. I suggest sending your appeal to POPLA by post because if you submit online you cannot add to anything already sent when you receive CPP's submissions as it will be flagged as being too late. the ordinay post allows you to rebut their claims if they are trying to claim things that are not true such as they have a right under PE V beavis- that is still under consideration so claiming it is law is a contempt of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for quick and detailed resposne, will use your guidance above and keep you posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning - for info - letter received this morning from POPLA - details have now been passed to Ombudsman Services Limited who will be in touch after 14th September, to advise what needs to be done to register appeal. They say they have copied their letter to CP Plus Limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The Ombudsman service has taken over the appeals process and they are still getting their feet under the table so to speak.

 

All that happens now is that they will still allow your appeal to be heard but may take a little longer than usual.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experiance with Ombudsman Services Ltd is a negative one when it comes to other areas of their work so I really dont hold much confidence in them being as good as POPLA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess time will tell.

 

I'll update the thread as and when I know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning,

 

 

I'm slightly confused now?

 

 

Further to POPLA writing to us (letter dated 2nd Sept) saying that things were being passed onto the Ombudsman, we received another letter from POPLA, saying that an Appeal had been opened, reference number supplied. Then on 17th September POPLA wrote again to say that some information was missing, and asked us to complete a form. Form completed and returned on 19th September (bit of a rush, but I was going into hospital for surgery and didn't know how long I would be in for and didn't want to miss the 28 day window)

 

 

Today, we've received an Evidence Checklist, copies of photographs of signage, witness statement from moto, copies of our letters to CPP, but it doesn't say who it is from, or what we are supposed to do with it? No contact phone numbers or details of any one to ask.

 

 

If Ombudsman has taken over, why are letters on POPLA letterhead?

 

 

Even at this stage, would CPPlus accept a nominal payment, just to make this all go away?

 

 

Any idea what we are supposed to do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ombudsman service are acting for POPLA and as such, letters will still have the POPLA logo.

 

This is the evidence pack that CP Plus send to both you and the Ombudsman. This is what they will be relying on.

 

Just to be clear, even if your appeal was rejected, CP plus don't do court!


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Silverfox, so we do nothing meantime, and wait to hear from them again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have a really good read of what you have received and post up a copy of the signage.

 

 

Is there anything wrong or untrue about what has been said by CPP and if so you send POPLA a letter of rebuttal.

 

 

Have they included authority from the landowner or just Moto,

who dont have the rigth to make the contract needed for CPP to sue for damages or loss?

 

 

If MOTO then it is worthless as far as enforcement goes so you should be telling POPLA that they dont have the authority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning,

 

I have attached the evidence that we have been sent.

 

I don't recognise the signage, it could be anywhere, as I don't actually see it says Wetherby.

 

The letter is from Moto, not the landowner.

 

So do we now write to POPLA saying we have received their evidence pack, and dispute the evidence on the grounds that the letter is from Moto and not the landowner. And furthermore ask them to prove that this signage is specifically from Wetherby?

 

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.

 

Also point out this sign is not a contract but an invitation to treat as

 

it does not contain the conditions of the contract to be considered

but refers to other signs that are unseen and not given as evidence here.

 

No contract can have therefore been formed based upon this.

 

A Mobile phone is required to use the unseen payment method and no alternative arrangements are offered by this sign.

 

This is an unfair term, even if a contract could be formed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal details now removed and re-attached

 

Evening - some 5 months on, we have a letter from POPLAicon, referring to parkingeyeicon-Vs-Beavis???? and asking for us to send information to them. However, we send everything to them on 9th October, Recorded Delivery, so they already have everything!

 

(Hopefully) attached is the letter they have sent - can you please advise what we do now? I think after 5 months, they have a cheek asking for further information!

 

Thanks in advance

POPLA - March 2016 Page 2.pdf

POPLA - March 2016 Page 1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

usual load of old bowlarks


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

ignore until/unless you get a claimform

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, the Beavis case was about ONE particular car park where they paid the landowner £1k per week to operate on the land in question. If CP+ did not do the same on this site (or very similar terms) then I don't see how they can use the case as a precedent.

 

The facts made by ericsbrother are still relevant in this case and as such, if you wish to counter them, write back and state as such however, I don't feel that it would be worth it as even if you lost the appeal, CP+ would have to take court action to get their 'pound of flesh' which is in no way guaranteed.

 

As an aside, I have parked many times in motorway service areas and never have I had to look for space, How could you cost them money at night in a mainly empty car park. You couldn't leave the site on foot. Where would you go? The fact they only allow one method of buying extra time (mobile) helps no one, especially technophobes or people that do not own a mobile (yes there are some out there). Unlit signage! Just how are you supposed to see them at 1 a.m when the headlights of a car don't look upwards?


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA are now considering appeals stayed until Bevis was decidwed upon.

They are giving you the opportunity to add any more evidence you wish to so a second bite at the cherry.

 

 

obviously this applies to the parking co but as your appeal has nothing to do with Beavis

then saying nothing means that it will be determined on what you have already submitted.

 

 

I would leave things as they are and if the parking co is successful we still have some more card to lay later if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning, unfortunately we have received a letter from POPLA this morning, we have lost our appeal :( - please see attached letter. Do we have to pay up now, or wait for the next letter?

POPLA 18 March 2016.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to remember that this is a civil penalty and as such, the only way they could enforce it is by going to court. As far as I can tell CP+ took 6 cases to court last year and lost them all. This shows that a judge will not always see it the same way.

 

I do have to say that since the new team took over the POPLA appeals service, they seem to be refusing more. They are accepting what the PPCs are saying without further checks. IF what CP+ have told POPLA is different to what is true then they won't get far at court.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA have shot themselves in the foot regarding their statement about planning permission

because they say that no further appeals or evidence can be submitted to them.

So, when they make an error of law how do they avoid a judicial review?

 

The new remit for the contract to run the appeals must be pretty constrained

as POPLA is funded by the BPA membership and they obviously want the best decisions they can buy.

 

 

It looks like they believe that no-one would spend the sort of money they would have to to challenge this

and it is true that it is way beyond the pocket of most people to actually hold them to account

but that is the nature of the parking beast,

all based on knowing the costs of fighting are more than aquiescence rather then the correctness of their position.

 

Now you can look and see if they do have planning permission for their signage

and if they dont compain to the council (and the local press)

and use it a a very bid stick if they come demanding you pay up cos POPLA says so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Moto do have planning permission for their signage, as I found the attached on their local council website. But, am I right in thinking they don't have permission for illuminated signage, and given it was dark, the signs were not readable?

 

However, returning to comments made by Silverfox earlier, the driver was a technophobe at the time of the alleged offence and did not have a mobile phone to pay.

08_01645_ADV _ Display of 32 various signs as part of signage scheme.pdf

06174126.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...