CP Plus - double dipping - no RK

[Miss_J]

Howdy,

I have two charges from a company called CP Plus for stays I made at a Tesco car park that was previously monitored by Parking Eye. On both occasions they are trying to do me for double dipping - a 5 hour stay and a 14 hour stay when on both occasions I was there for 15 mins max. 

Curiously, neither letter mentions POFA, nor states I am the RK, nor compel me under law to name the RK or driver yet both do state they don't know who is the RK, that only the driver is required to pay the fines ans this is weird because past fines from Parking Eye and Euro Car Parks say that the RK is obliged to pay and have named me as the RK:

"The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge within the time frame stipulated above. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should provide us with the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to the driver".

CP Plus also say: "we are writing to you because either you were the registered keeper at the time of parking, or the registered keeper has named you as the driver at the time of the event" but the driver (me) has never been in contact with them or grassed up the RK (also me).

Do I even have to reply - do they have any leg to stand on - considering the flaws above and their clear lack of knowledge as to who the driver and RK are?

I have taken pics of one of the letters if you want to see it.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Miss_J

[dx100uk]

fines?

where do they use that word please?

you attach as a PDF

[Miss_J]

additional text re inserted ..dx

They didn't use the word 'fines' I did. 

.

PCN.pdf

[ericsbrother]

we need to see the times and dates of the event or we cant tell if they were issued correctly. Cna you either put those in or repost the NTK.

They also tell some terrible fibs, they have misquoted the Beavis decision and have done so on purpose as it says they are lawful when they are NOT extravagat or unconscionable and that set a charge of £80 as the upper level  for that.

[ericsbrother]

DON'T  be tempted to respond to the NTK but by all meand bend Tesco's ear over this.

Start off with their customer services people and if they say they can't ...you ask to speak to a supervisor and tell them that they have employed people who are engaged in fraud and that you will be going after Tesco's for their part in this when you have dealt with CPP.

If they say they cant help slag them off something terrible on their instrgram, twitter or any other social media you can use

[Miss_J]

Correction to my earlier message, their letters DO state I was the RK at the time but even so, they are still only chasing the driver whereas others companies say that unless the driver is named, they have a legal right to chase the RK for the debt.

I edited times and dates because I didn't want to be identified if CP Plus snoop these forums.

[dx100uk]

You don't need to hide

[ericsbrother]

 if they want to rely on the POFA then they ahve to follow certain protocols. If you wnat to fight this based on their failings under the POFA then  we need to know the critical things like dates and times.

Dont worry about them snooping on these forums, it actually makes it more likely they will back off when they realise the whole world knows they are in the wrong.

Eventually they might start doing things correctly and no-one will have reason to complain. When that day comes I shall go skiing in Hades.

[Miss_J]

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay.  For both I've received a charge notice and reminder and for one of them, a 'legal action pending' letter. I've also received no help from Tesco.

Notices:
In:     10:27 - 16/01/2019
Out: 15:59 - 16/01/2019

In:    20:01 - 19/01/2019 
Out: 10:32 - 20/01/2019 

The legal action pending letter is claiming an extra £40 and threatening damage to my credit file but if I understand correctly, this is toothess smoke and mirrors: that they cannot add extra costs to a parking charge and the threat of  credit rating damage is misrepresentation - implying they have the power to affect my rating for an unpaid bill (when it's not a credit-related issue) when in fact any affectation can only come from a judge awarding a CCJ?

Legal letter text: 
"A notice was sent to you on 25/01/2019 and a reminder issued on 11/02/2019. To date the full payment has not been received and the deadline for valid representation against the charge has expired.

To avoid this being passed to our legal department for further action and possible further charges you are required to pay the sum of £140 within 14 days of this letter.

Your ability to obtain credit in the future may be affected if we have to take this matter to our solicitors for further action.

If you were not the driver please forward the driver's nae and current address. If the vehicle has been hired plese provide a signed statement confirming the hirer's name and address and include a copy of both the hire agreement and their statement of liability".

As per my previous posts, I am intrigued by them stating that only the driver is responsible rather than the RK and that they do not mention that the RK has a legal obligation to reveal the driver's details, whilst other agencies do say this in their letters.

Thank in advance x

[ericsbrother]

we still need to see the original NTK as I wouild warrant hat is deficient to create a keeper liablity in more than one way and they may not have created ANY liability at all.

As for the threat of adding unicorn food tax to the origianl bill just because thy have to use a different crayon, that should be reported to the FCA as the regulatory body.

They are not authorised to add a bean and their threat break the rules on debt collection activity regardless of whether they are authorised or not.

[Miss_J]

Not sure what is going on but I don't have the option anymore to upload an attachment (pdf) for you to see the original NTKs.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Miss_J

[dx100uk]

simple drag and drop them into the box at the bottom by the paperclip. or click choose files

[Miss_J]

4 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

simple drag and drop them into the box at the bottom by the paperclip. or click choose files

I've used up my data allowance for this thread so I see no paperclip or 'choose files' option and nor do I see a way to delete what I've previously uploaded. I only have the option to insert an image from a URL or an existing, uploaded attachment. 

[dx100uk]

really?

you've only used 1.1MB

what size is the pdf you want to upload please

[Miss_J]

I get: "

• You have used all of the attachment space you are allowed. Manage Attachments to free up space

and when I click to manage  it says: 'You have used 2.58 MB of your 500 kB attachment limit'. I am trying to upload is 443kb (a reduction from 4.95mb).

Edited March 5, 2019 by Miss_J

[dx100uk]

aha I know whats happened 

give us a while i'll see if it can be sorted

[Miss_J]

PCN PCN.pdf

 

 

 

Good to see I can upload now. Here are the 2 original charge notices. Identical except for different times and charge notices. I've also received a legal threat letter for both incidents now.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Miss_J

[ericsbrother]

now these NTK's arent compliant witht eh POFA to create a liability ( they have to use key phrases or no cigar) so they arent worth responding to as all that will do is encourage them to think you will pay up. As for the threat letter, who is that from? If it fro a DCA then you have failed to read up on private parking and the behaviour of DCA's, both of which are an absolute must otherwise how are you going to know what to do?

[Miss_J]

The threats were from the parking company themselves - not a DCA - and they looked very similar to the original letters that I uploaded: pictures of my car entering and leaving, close ups of my licence plate, times and dates of the offences etc.

 

The difference is that they were titled 'legal action pending' and said as I had failed to respond to the original letter the deadline has passed to settle for their original charge of £100 and bumped the fee to £140 - saying that to avoid the matter being passed to their legal team (LOL!) and further charges that I must pay within 14 days or else they may get a DCA involved. 

Then they lied about a risk to my ability to get credit if they have to get their solicitors involved.

Then they finished off by once again asking for the name of the driver.

I gather it's all lies and they're telling flat-out porkies (adding charges and threatening more) and distorting the truth: credit can only be affected if a court applies a CCJ - not simply because their lawyers get involved (as there's no credit agreement in play).

So your advice on this letter is also welcome.

 

As is your idea as to why they've been chasing the driver from day one whereas most operators make it clear the RK is responsible and only request the driver's details as a chance for the RK to avoid the bill.

[dx100uk]

please don't swear read our rules

 

[ericsbrother]

advice on letter? Ignore it. You keep it stored with the other correspondence. The next step may well be more of the same sort of drivel from a dca but that means even less than this.

Ultimately it rarely becomes an issue because people defeat the claIm in its entirely most of the time so the added unicorn food tax doesnt  get a mention. Occasionally a judge has awarded the parking co the flat £100 or whatever because of a lack of contractual liability for any additional clauses as the POFA is quite clear on this and that means they win £100 but lose more than that in their additional costs.

[Miss_J]

7 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

Occasionally a judge has awarded the parking co the flat £100 or whatever because of a lack of contractual liability for any additional clauses as the POFA is quite clear on this and that means they win £100 but lose more than that in their additional costs.

 

 

Why would a judge award the £100 if there's a lack of contractual liability? 

If they can end up getting the £100 anyway then why has the advice in this and other threads been to ignore or reply back by laughing in their face (especially when not POFA compliant and so they have negated their entire claim(?

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Miss_J

[ericsbrother]

you havent read the full sentence FOR ANY ADDITIONAL clauses..... that are on the signage and then jumped to the wrong conclusion.

You will see this on many signs, they say that if you dotn apy up within a certain time then recovery costs will be added. they can only do that if they sue the DRIVER as the keeper was never party to the agreement their liability to the parking co is strict- limited by the POFA.

 

Also, not every charge issued is faulty, some companies do get it right and have all the correct permissions. that is why we ask for a long list of information and tell you to ask the council about planning, demand sight of contracts etc. however, even when the parking co does all of that if their signs arent obvious and their machinery for registering vehicles-ie like the equipment Highview use at Tesco stores is so complicated then they still wont necessarily win a claim.

parking co's make about £300 million a year on issuing pcn's and roughly 5% of those are actually correctly issued. the above comment is so anyone who actually gets a properly issued pcn and it ends up in court they still have a way of keeping the actual amount down to the true level. Not a single member of the IPC will be in that 5% and they will all add spurious fees to the bill.  Could it be they receive advice that isnt true but as most peopel dont fight tooth and nail they find it is worth their while telling fibs and risking a earbashing in court

Edited March 23, 2019 by ericsbrother

[Miss_J]

Clearly you are well versed on this topic and I am trying to keep up but it seems each time you hit me with more info I was uanware of lol. Let's break this down to help me out....

If the driver is the one who is sued and not the RK then why do so many companies threaten the RK by citing law that says they will be responsible if they don't name the driver? In this case with CP Parking, they keep talking about the driver only.

How are CP Plus's letters not POFA compliant and does this nullify any claim they try to make in the two instances they're hassling me over?

 

Obviously the double dipping is a big giveaway..........
 

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, Miss_J said:

If the driver is the one who is sued and not the RK then why do so many companies threaten the RK by citing law that says they will be responsible if they don't name the driver? In this case with CP Parking, they keep talking about the driver only.

 

Because the PPCs were at a massive disadvantage legally as they never knew who the driver was, so they got a law passed - the famous POFA - which means under certain circumstances the driver's liability could be transferred to the RK.  Look up the law and read it, you'll understand the rest.

 

BTW, have you got on to Tesco?  Yours is a clear case of double dipping and you have a good chance of getting Tesco to get the charge cancelled.  

Edited March 26, 2019 by FTMDave