CP+, ANPR, plate misread

[BazzaS]

this morning I've received a Valentines from CP plus, a "charge notice", issued on 10/2/17.

However, it seems they have misread the car's number plate.

 

Someone has apparently stayed in a private car park on 3/2/17, and they "do not have evidence that a sufficient payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit".

 

They show photos of the vehicle entering, and leaving.

In one of the photo's the only barely discernible feature is its colour, as it was nightime.

 

 

In the other, the car is clearly red, and one can guess at its make and size, and probably thus the model (or at least it being one of 2 models of roughly that size).

 

The registration of that vehicle is "xx yy zzC". The vehicle I'm the RK for is "xx yy zzG"

 

They clearly have gone to DVLA with my registration mark, and been supplied with my vehicle's details (which is definitely NOT the same model, nor a colour anywhere close), and also been given my name and address by DVLA.

 

The notice doesn't clearly mention or describe "keeper liability" (would a [suitably redacted] scan be useful?), nor state if a NtD was left on the vehicle.

 

So, they haven't a chance in hell of me paying anything, nor of a win if they were foolish enough to go to court (which it seems is rare for CP+).

 

So, my questions are:

1) Best way to bat them away with least hassle, but ideally

2) How to avoid them correcting their error, and then them sending a PoFA compliant NTK to the RK of the vehicle that they show in the photos?.

 

Are they treating their "charge notice" as a NTK?, or is this their opening salvo and I should expect a missive entitled "Notice to Keeper" to follow?.

 

Their letter doesn't mention a NtD, so I assume that if they want to rely on it as a NtK following a NtD, then they aren't following para 8(2)© of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

 

If (instead) they want to rely on this as a NtK in the absence of a NtD, they are within the 'relevant period', but don't follow Para 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

 

(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

 

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

 

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

They mention payment required within 28 days, the driver being responsible for the charge, them not knowing the driver's name and address, and that if I wasn't the driver at the time I should "provide us with the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them". They don't actually clearly warn me that keeper liability might attach if I don't identify the driver, though ........

 

Under "appeals and complaints" they state "errors can occur". (I'm shocked by this!).

I can write to their Appeals Section within 28 days of the date of the 'Notice'

 

Under the separate heading of "Contact Us", the address for appeals remains the same PO Box (except it is now Appeals Department, not 'Section'), but they also give a URL for online (www.appealpcn.co.uk), and a telephone number (like I'm going to phone a PPC!).

 

I know I can appeal on any grounds ("it was February!", "I don't like PPC's!"), but "you've read the number plate wrong" might prompt them to correct their error.

 

So,

A) if I appeal online, can they claim they said I should write?

B) have I had a NtK or can they claim that is to follow?

C) when should I best appeal to reduce the likeleyhood of them sending a POFA compliant NtK to the correct RK?

D) Would an appeal of "Keeper liability does not attach here due to non-compliance with PoFA Schedule 4, para's 8 & 9" be better than "you've read the number plate incorrectly, that clearly isn't the model and colour of my car"?.

 

My appeal will ask them for a POPLA code if they reject my appeal ..........

 

I assume that if it goes to POPLA:

a) The BPA ends up paying POPLA to consider it,

b) I can appeal on the grounds not only

i) that keeper liability wasn't created, but also

ii) The vehicle shown is not my vehicle, the ANPR has misread, and the alleged breach of contract by MY vehicle never occurred.

 

Anything else I should be considering?.

[dx100uk]

have a read of this

it explains things

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

 

 

and also fill in the relevant part for an ANPR capture after you copy and past it here

[BazzaS]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

 

Thanks, dx. I've posted much already, but in case it helps, I'll add in the extra.

I had deliberately witheld the location to avoid the PPC working out their error and sending out a POFA compliant NtK to the correct RK, but since you are asking for those details.......

 

For tickets received through the post [ANPR camera capture] (Notice to Keeper)

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement As noted in my original post, 3/2/17

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] As noted in my original post, 10/2/17

 

3 Date received As noted in my original post, 13/2/17

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] As noted in my original post, I'm not sure if they are calling this a NtK. It doesn't overtly mention Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, though, just the text I've quoted.

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? As noted in my original post, yes, but not of my car!.

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] As noted in my original post, not yet.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

7 Who is the parking company? As noted in my original post, CP Plus.

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] I'd withheld that for the reasons above, but since you specifically ask: Royal Shrewsbury Hospital is stated. If site team feel it is better if this is suppressed for now, please feel free to edit it out.

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. As noted in my original post, yes, BPA/POPA

[Sidewinder]

My mischievous side says to ignore and see how far they push it, but I would also be inclined to put them on notice that they have the wrong person.

 

You haven't said whether it is 'possible' that you could have been at the RSH on that day, or whether you could prove that you were somewhere else entirely,but in either event so long as you are certain this is not your vehicle I would write a single line to say 'The car shown is not my vehicle - please do not write to me again'

 

Hopefully they will then ignore that and you can start to create merry hell with the DVLA and the BPA

[BazzaS]

Absolutely not my vehicle.

Neither I nor my vehicle was anywhere near there that day.

 

I'll check if my car was in use those times on that date (the dash cam has GPS for time / location).

 

Easiest for me is to say "you've read the plate wrong, not me : look at the images & you'll see they don't match the reg. mark ending in G" : I'd just prefer to do this in a way that doesn't stitch up the RK of the other car.

 

If I can show the PPC the flaw(s) in their business model without too much additional hassle : so much the better!

[renegadeimp]

had a similar issue in chester city at their market car park. ANPR caught my plate on my ticket as xxxx xxO where mine was xxxx xxC .

 

barrier wouldn't let me through and attendant was adamant i hadn't paid until i was ready to slap him and pointed out the error.

 

Got a nice complaint going through their head office, BPA and also the council now

[ericsbrother]

There are severa approaches you can use to this, they will have varying speeds of success but you will get there eventually.

 

The first thing I would to is complain to the trustees at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital ( now you can see why knowing where the event was is important, complaining to a random property management co will get you nowhere)

 

by saying that their servants have improperly accessed your keeper details to claim monies for a parking event that didnt occur and the evidence they have produced to to this is flawed, in as much as it is not your vehicle and their tuppeny halfpenny not fit for purpose Anpr is the root cause of this problem, along with their lack of scrutiny on anything they send out as a result

 

. If you ( the trustees) do not instruct CPP to cancel this forthwith you will be suing them The trustees) for the breach of the DPA in obtaining your details when their servants had not cause to do so. This will be for a minimum of £250 as per VCS v Philip, Liverpool CC dec 2016.

 

When you get a response from this you can tell us what it says but until you have spoken to the organ grinder there is no point speaking to the monkey so dont contact CPP. Send a letter to the chair of the trust and not an email to pals and no telephone calls Make it only possible for them to react in one way.

 

If they say they have passed the matter on to CP respond by sending a letter before action to sue them for the breach of the DPA (again, will help draft). We can then pick up the matter by way of a FOI request later, they wont like their dirty washing being aired in public

[BazzaS]

I accept what you are saying EB, but from the photos the C could be read as a G.

 

On the one hand that is evidence that their ANPR isn't fit for purpose, but I'd expect they'd then argue that my details were lawfully obtained.

However, they should then check there hasn't been a "misread"!

Even if they could argue my information was lawfully obtained : I'd argue that its retention and acting on it by sending out the charge notice wasn't lawful as a cursory check of if the correct car's details had been obtained would have revealed the error!

 

If there is any doubt regarding the scanned plate they should check the details of the car for that registration matches the photo. They could do this before seeking my name & address : it then wouldn't be my personal data!

[ericsbrother]

Look, do you want to argue over the detail of why they got it wrong or do you want the Trust to force them to cancel, thus putting both of those parties on notice that they could be in trouble if they dont.

 

What the trust will hate more than anything is getting their names in the papers over something that is already newsworthy.

 

They will force CPP to drop the matter without giving nay detail of why just to save face and make sure that the person who signed them up continues to enjoy a game of golf for free somewhere

 

(OK so that was the position at where I used to work and not necessarily applicable to all places- thy might just want a new carpet for example)

[BazzaS]

(Due to timings), appeal to CP Plus ; rejected by them (unsurprisingly).

POPLA code supplied, appealed to POPLA ; the next day CP Plus withdrew " as a gesture of goodwill".

 

I could try to take action against the RSH, but they'll likely claim "CP Plus are an independant contractor". A FOI request (for the number of complaints they have had, the outcomes, and if they placed any KPI's as part of their contract with CP Plus, and if they are being met) seems the best way to go with RSH.

 

CP Plus? letter before action noting that they have misused my private information (including after I've notified them my car wasn't parked in contravention and requiring them to cease improperly processing my personal data)seems to be the way to go, along the lines of

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

VCS v Phillip was a county court case, so the £250 is informative, not binding.

Google v. Vidal-Hall[ 2015] EWCA Civ 311, however, is binding, and grants authority that the tort is actionable per se......

[ericsbrother]

gesture of goodwill? they were caught with their trousers down and they would have got a spanking on that bare bottom so of course they saved themselves a lot of pain but dressed it up in a way that makes it look like they are doing you a favours and it was all your fault all along.

 

You have found the right case law should you wish to claim your £250.

 

Look at Brodrick v Gale and Ainslie Ltd if you want to see how "non binding" a CC decision is. G&A thought so when they challenged the damages sought via a standard county court accepted tariff and ended up bankrupt as a result.

 

so, if the daft sods want to say it isnt binding quote the above as well and challenge them to challenge you on that basis in court.

Edited April 20, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras.

[BazzaS]

Not binding cuts both ways :

The 'non-binding' relates to quantum, not liability.

 

On the day another district judge might value it at more than £250, especially given there was their initial misdeed, and their repeat once I'd asked them to stop. £300 fits neatly with a case fee boundary.

 

I'm tempted to ask them ( as a means of avoiding having to litigate) for £100 (in the form of a donation to a charity of my choice), an apology, and an assurance they won't do the same again, provided they do so before I issue the claim.

 

 

Sure, it is less money, but it includes components that a court can't order ...... that can only come from a settlement by consent.

 

Once (IF!) the claim is issued I'd not settle for the lower sum.

 

Considering Brodrick v Gale and Ainslie Ltd : from the facts you have stated, surely the issue there isn't that previous accepted standards for quantum were or weren't binding on the judge in that case, but that judge could choose to follow it or not.

 

Thus, when the judge chose to follow it, the defendant's error was in appealing against the judge's decision to follow it, and then incurring legal expenses sufficient to bankrupt them.

 

It wasn't that "it was binding" ..... it was that "it wasn't that it couldn't be followed if the judge on the day chose to do so".

 

If they want to be difficult, I'll say "I'm happy to let the judge adjudicate ; that's their job!", and if they want to try it on with the judge .......

 

It appears that case was unreported, at least I can't find a direct citation for it; do you have one?.

Apparently it was mentioned in an issue of 'Water Law', in a discussion of "Rainbow trout and nuisance" (!) back in 1993? (!!) but was cited as "unreported"??

[ericsbrother]

You have found the right case. Brodrick was the secretary of the Savernake fly fishers and Gale & Ainslie Ltd were a farm that allowed effluent to pollute the river. The claim was for damages and loss of amenity using a formula that had been used for some time ( since the National Rivers Authority were given powers to prosecute).

 

Basically the damages sought were for the loss of both the fish and also for the value of the membership or riparian rights that couldnt be used in the time the river was polluted and had to be repopulated. G&A didnt agree with the usual formula and when the judge awarded the formula amount they appealed.

 

The appeal was heard at the same court (Swindon) and G&A lost the appeal but had to pay massive costs, not only the bill for the Fly Fishers but also the NRA costs and they had an ongoing liability as a result.

If thye had settled with the usual formula they would ahve had to pay a couple of thousand pounds for the loss of amenity and fairly low costs and most likely avoided a fine in the criminal court as the National Rivers Authority preferred to let other parties do the running.

 

Their other problem is it also set a precedent for claims for loss of amenity that could be used elsewhere and added to other possible claims for tort under Rylands v Fletcher

 

So, agreed that the formula wasnt binding prior to this, it was an accepted CoP and as said, it would be foolish for a parking co to dispute the £250 accepted quantum from VCS v Philip because they then risk not only being ordered to pay a lot more but also they risk settinga true precedent that would make every successful appeal against their charges automatically a huge loser for them.

 

That may force the government to revisit the private parking world with legislation and I do not believe they would allow their pet outsourcing go-to, Capita (Parking Eye) to be hung so any changes would not be in anyones interests.

 

My ex was a paralegal at the solicitors involved, Stephen Mitchell and Co

Edited April 21, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras.