CPP PCN Birchwood Park, Warrington *** WON at POPLA ***

[TimmyH56]

My wife and I work for the same company.

She broke her foot in November tripping over one of the many spent firework rockets left lying around the work car park by the landlord.

 

After a while she decided to go back to work with a surgical boot and crutches and I agreed with our building manager that if our car park was full I would park in the disabled spaces as our overspill car park is quarter of a mile away.

Four spaces are marked up for my company and the other five aren't marked up for anybody.

 

On the morning in question, our four were taken up so I parked in one of the others.

 

I got a ticket from CPP who didn't even query with our reception desk (I've got a company sticker on my windscreen).

 

My company contacted the landlord (who knew my wife had a broken foot) to ask what was going on

just got a curt reply saying we shouldn't have been parked in disabled bays that are not ours.

 

We thought it had been dealt with however.

 

Then a PCN arrived so help appreciated folks.

 

Redacted PCN attached.

 

1 Date of the infringement 28/11/17

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 29/12/17

 

3 Date received 03/01/18

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 you appeal] No

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

 

7 Who is the parking company? Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Birchwood Business Park, Warrington

CPP PCN.pdf

[ericsbrother]

Understannd something about these comanies to start off with and then everything else becomes more logical.

 

They dont care about what rights or agreements you have or why you parked there,

they are only interested in making money not actually managing the car park

so whatever you say to them by way of an appeal will be ignored.

 

So, they slapped a ticket on your car on the 28th dec and then sent an NTK through the post on the 3rd jan?

 

Well the good news is that they havent complied with the protocols of the POFA and thus the demand isnt a legal one.

This point will get lost between now and when they eventually drop the matter

but in law, they cant legally chase you as they havent issued a correct invoice.

Bit like me agreeing to do a building job for you and not telling you how much it costs and then suing you for a random amount.

 

Now, landlord has the right to tell your co off for that but the ticket is a separate matter so dont give up on the matter.

 

We will ned to see the ticket and the NTK with your personal details, any reference numbers and any bar codes etc hidden.

I would bet that there are errors with their paperwork apart from not issuing in the correct time.

[dx100uk]

read upload use PDF please

upload in post 1 hidden

reg number showing in texts

[TimmyH56]

ericsbrother - the ticket was 28 Nov not 28 Dec.

 

 

Ticket, ticket bag uploaded and PCN further redacted and uploaded.

 

 

Thanks

CPP NTK.pdf

Ticket.pdf

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

Just for clarity, CPP are really Liberty Printers and are a small company with less than 16,000 tickets issued last year and they haven't taken any court action at all-ever! Now, it seems that they have been taken over by Capita Plc who also own Parking Eye so it may be that CPP may become more litigious in the future

 

You received a windscreen ticket on 28th November and the NTK was issued on the 29th December. This is in line with POFA as they have to send the NTK between 29 and 56 days after issuing the windscreen ticket.

 

I suggest a soft appeal to CPP purely to get the POPLA code and go full on with POPLA. Even if you lost at POPLA, CPP would have to take court action to get their payday.

 

As for the landowners. They have abdicated all responsibility to CPP so if court action IS mooted, you would want to see the contract the landowners have with CPP.

 

Can you get some pictures of the signs at the workplace.

 

Just to throw a spanner in the works, the landowner could be held responsible for failure to ensure the site is safe by not cleaning up after a fireworks party.

[Homer67]

Hi,

You received a windscreen ticket on 28th November and the NTK was issued on the 29th December. This is in line with POFA as they have to send the NTK between 29 and 56 days after issuing the windscreen ticket..

 

Should that be 'NOT in line with POFA' ?

[silverfox1961]

Should that be 'NOT in line with POFA' ?

As I see it, there was a space of 31 days between the issuing of the windscreen ticket. As CPP have to wait for 28 days before issuing an NTK and this must be received by the keeper between 29 and 56 days after the event.

 

These are within the rules on keeper liability. Obviously it is different for ANPR systems where they have only 14 days to get the NTK into the hands of the keeper

[ericsbrother]

Ok to pick holes in their NTK: They havent specified where the land is as there are 4 birchwood parks on streetmap. Also i bet that the 2offence" doesnt exactly match any of the contractual conditions on their signage

[TimmyH56]

Hi Folks

 

CPP have now rejected my appeal - letter attached.

 

Photos of the signage are also attached.

 

The sign for the car park is actually inside a car park barrier.

I was parked outside the barrier.

A photo attached taken from where I was parked and sign is highlighted in red.

 

Cheers

Rejected appeal.pdf

[DragonFly1967]

What did you say in your appeal to CPP?

[TimmyH56]

I said what I said in the initial post

- my wife had broken her foot on a hazard in the landlord's car park and it had been agreed with our Building Manager that I could park in disabled spaces if the normal car park was full.

 

On the day in question the normal car park was full as well as my company's disabled spaces by butty vans and the like (see example attached)

 

the only space available was in a row of disabled spaces that is not designated to any of the companies who use the car park.

 

I parked where the butty van is parked in the photo.

 

The land owner is now the local Council as of mid-September but I think they use Patrizia as agents who have used CCP for a few years.

[dx100uk]

Can't be council land if you got a speculative invoice

 

Or if it is then it can be totally ignored

[DragonFly1967]

Hmm, Hoopla probably aren't going to listen to reason, since London Councils lost the contract, Ombudsman Services have a very limited remit of what are and aren't 'valid' reasons for appeal.

 

There's nothing stopping you appealing to Hoopla of course, but don't expect them to order the charge cancelled. The upside is that Hoopla decisions are not binding on the motorist (or keeper).

 

Which only leaves CPP with the options of writing the keeper more begging & threatening letters, handing it over to their pet DCA and finally their tame solicitors. Ultimately, the only way that they can hope to get any money out of you is to take you to county court and win.

 

They're going to have a problem with that as those signs a) tell lies and b) fail to form a valid contract. So they've no real prospect of ever winning a court case based on them, which is the only option they have.

 

You can appeal to Hoopla to evidence your reasonableness, but it won't make any real difference unless CPP fold at this stage (certainly not unheard of).

[DragonFly1967]

Can't be council land if you got a speculative invoice

 

Or if it is then it can be totally ignored

 

My thoughts exactly dx. CPP claim to be acting on behalf of the landowner which is extremely unlikely if the landowner is the council. They also claim on their signs that the land is privately owned, which it isn't if it's owned by the council.

 

All in all, it's not looking too good for CPP and their pet snakes

[silverfox1961]

It may be that the land was council owned but was sold to a developer. If it is still council land, then I would have thought that penalty charges would have to be issued instead of a parking charge. Some detective work needed.

 

As far as I can tell, the signage does not contain a physical address as is required. A PO Box is insufficient to that matter.

 

In the words of DX, disabled bays are just Tarmac Graffiti on private land.

 

POPLA do have the power to refer a ticket back to CPP if they feel the first appeal was not handled properly.

 

Finding out who the landowner is and getting your boss to contact them may help as well.

 

As mentioned, Liberty Printers have taken no court action from 2014-2017. Too early in the year to see what they are likely to do this year.

[ericsbrother]

put it simply,

the land you were on is not covered by the contract offered by the signage that is inside the barrier.

 

If there are no other signs then they dont have a contract to breach and they can get lost.

 

as your appeal wont have mentioned any of this then I would keep quite for the moment and let them waste money on paying a dca to write scary letters

 

when it looks like they will take action fire off a very strong letter telling them you know they are talking gibberish and you will be going after them if they persist.

 

oh & forget about the bad fott, badges, tickets atc it is all irrelevant to the argument.

[TimmyH56]

The Council definitely own the land but use Patrizia for site management.

 

They bought it as a money generator to obtain the rent paid by all the companies based on the site

 

Our Building Manager contacted Patrizia about the ticket.

They know all about my wife breaking her foot in the work car park as she made a statement to them.

 

The same lady said to our Building Manager that because a ticket had been issued, I needed to write to CCP and the charge would be withdrawn.

It wasn't.

 

http://warringtonandco.com/property-news/warrington-borough-council-buys-birchwood-park/

[DragonFly1967]

A council using a private parking company? That'll make the Judge giggle!

 

It matters not a single jot who the Managing Agent is, CPP would need the authority of the landowner, and they won't have that from the council.

 

I'd leave CPP to it and let them get all the way to threatening you with court. That'll be the point that you can wipe the floor with them.

[dx100uk]

managing agent making money on council land...urm...

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

well, even the signage doesnt make a contract for many reasons, authorised vehicles only? who authorises them and if another body then how do CPP know that you havent made a verbal contract with this other body- thye dont.

 

So, not an offer for parking and thus the money claimed for breach of contract isnt due as there is no contract and in any case it is designed to deter, not form a series of conditions for you to consider because you arent authorised to do so.

 

Unlawful penalty so the landmark decision of Beavis works for you and against them so it would be nice to see if they mention it in their futher taradiddles.

 

Allso no address for company, just PO Box number and same for NTK. if you read the POFA this means thy ahve failed to notify you correctly so their invoice is invalid. Game over.

Edited February 15, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[TimmyH56]

I've taken this to POPLA - my defence and their response (received yesterday) are attached. I've been given seven days to respond but it doesn't look like I can attach any photos to my response. The overhead shot they enclose was taken before the building I parked outside was even built - see attached photo "Site" which shows the present overhead.

 

 

There are no signs at the entrance and exit of the site - they took them down and were not in place at the time of the incident. They have not given proof they have a contract with the land owner.

 

 

Advice please - thanks.

CPP POPLA Extracted Photos.pdf

POPLA Defence.pdf

CCP Response.pdf

[ericsbrother]

you have still missed the point regarding circumstance, they dont care as it has nothing to do with their contract (or what they think it means).

 

 

The vehicel could be an ambulance and they would still issues a ticket so the last bit of your defence is not going to make any difference.

you had an individually negotiated agreement that trumps their contractual claim and that is that.

 

 

By all menas try and bury them as liars when it comes to the buildings and their signage but POPLA wont belive you as they accept the parking co's word on this.

 

It isnt a court case so dont stress over it, you will win the ony important battle if they want to take it that far

Edited March 27, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[TimmyH56]

I put the circumstances in the defence as an earlier post said POPLA could refer an appeal back to an operator. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

 

So POPLA are going to believe CCP's dated signage diagram even though one of the signs is no longer there and the other three are in different car parks ? Plus just saying "it's private land and we have authority" is sufficient ?

[dx100uk]

yes ofcourse they will, who runs it....

 

most of that should have been left for a court defence IF you get one.

you peaked too early...

[ericsbrother]

POPLA will belive any old garbage that is trottted out even if your photos can prove your car was on the moon at the time.

 

The plus side of this is that CPP will know that you have the evidence to trash them and show they are liars at court so they wont be wanting to go that far.

they will be hoping that once POPLA say you have to pay you will do as you are told....