IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
CP Plus Windscreen Ticket Meadowhall
Options
PKandF
Posts: 19 Forumite
Hello all,
I realise that there is another thread regarding a similar matter being discussed, however I am seeking advice regarding the opening stages of appeal rather than a court case. Hopefully things don't get that far!
Below is a windscreen ticked received from CP Plus at Meadowhall, Sheffield.
Pictures of NTD:
Front: i.cubeupload.com/FRgGGF.jpg
Back: i.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg
I've had a read through the NEWBIES thread, and am approaching the day in which the blue text will be sent.
My initial question would be whether I can expand on the POFA 2012 compliance, or lack of in this case. I found the following appeal to a Highview postal PCN below:
I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.
There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
It is my understanding from reading the forum that CP Plus, like Highview, do not rely on the POFA in any form, however the above was in response to a postal PCN rather than the windscreen NTD received in this case. Would it help or hinder my cause to add this to my initial appeal?
Apologies if I have started this thread too early in the process. Unfortunately there have been a few of these ridiculous things issued, and ideally I would like to squash them tout-de-suite.
I realise that there is another thread regarding a similar matter being discussed, however I am seeking advice regarding the opening stages of appeal rather than a court case. Hopefully things don't get that far!
Below is a windscreen ticked received from CP Plus at Meadowhall, Sheffield.
Pictures of NTD:
Front: i.cubeupload.com/FRgGGF.jpg
Back: i.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg
I've had a read through the NEWBIES thread, and am approaching the day in which the blue text will be sent.
My initial question would be whether I can expand on the POFA 2012 compliance, or lack of in this case. I found the following appeal to a Highview postal PCN below:
I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.
There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
It is my understanding from reading the forum that CP Plus, like Highview, do not rely on the POFA in any form, however the above was in response to a postal PCN rather than the windscreen NTD received in this case. Would it help or hinder my cause to add this to my initial appeal?
Apologies if I have started this thread too early in the process. Unfortunately there have been a few of these ridiculous things issued, and ideally I would like to squash them tout-de-suite.
0
Comments
-
that looks like a popla decision
find and use a recent amended blue text template that includes a POFA2012 failure paragraph added (as keeper) , appealing around day 25 , as keeper0 -
that looks like a popla decision
find and use a recent amended blue text template that includes a POFA2012 failure paragraph added (as keeper) , appealing around day 25 , as keeper
Thanks, I take it that the most recent template is the one seen in the newbies thread first post?
If so, I'll crack on with that one. It'll probably end up at POPLA anyway in which case I'll be sure to hammer home the POFA point to them.0 -
yes it is
but see and use post #12 in this recent thread (like I said, its all here if you look)
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=56847870 -
yes it is
but see and use post #12 in this recent thread (like I said, its all here if you look)
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but with regards to the extra line:
"Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper. "
I was under the impression that 14 days was for a Postal PCN, and for a windscreen ticket it was 28-56 days? I'm not quite within those timescales yet and only have the NTD.0 -
correct
you have confused me by posting a popla appeal decision, where POFA2012 came into play
use the NEWBIES sticky thread "as is" for a windscreen ticket around day 25
at the moment this has nothing to do with POFA2012 because they have not failed the day 29 to day 56 part YET !!0 -
correct
you have confused me by posting a popla appeal decision, where POFA2012 came into play
use the NEWBIES sticky thread "as is" for a windscreen ticket around day 25
at the moment this has nothing to do with POFA2012 because they have not failed the day 29 to day 56 part YET !!
Ah I see! Sorry for the confusion, I'll follow your advice and crack right on!0 -
think of this as a hurdle race, take each hurdle one at a time, you got ahead of yourself and confused both yourself and me and could have easily lost the race due to dropping tha baton
just stick to the script, its easier all round
0 -
So today I received my rejection e-mail from CP-PLUS (as expected), with a POPLA code etc. so will begin work on this ASAP. However, there was a part of this e-mail that was very peculiar indeed.
"The PCN was issued because your vehicle was not parked in the correct designated car park. CP Plus has received a confirmation from the Area Manager at Meadowhall confirming that you are a current member of staff at Meadowhall. Please find attached images which were captured when the contravention was issued . It is the driver’s responsibiltiy to ensure that as a staff member at Meadowhall , to park in the staff car park at all times when visiting the centre."
The bolded statement above is absolutely absurd. As the registered keeper, I have never at any point been a staff member at Meadowhall. The car in question is registered to park in the staff car park under a different driver's name not mentioned once in any correspondence to CP PLUS. Even so, this is surely a mockery of data protection is it not?0 -
Yes! Grab them by the jugular!The bolded statement above is absolutely absurd. As the registered keeper, I have never at any point been a staff member at Meadowhall. The car in question is registered to park in the staff car park under a different driver's name not mentioned once in any correspondence to CP PLUS. Even so, this is surely a mockery of data protection is it not?
See PinkLady0805's thread for action to take about this data breach. Your case is a MUST for an ICO complaint, carefully worded to explain in words of one syllable to the ICO what the data breach is here, and the significant distress caused to the staff members whose work records are being shared with third parties.
Albeit: the ICO complaint must come from the STAFF MEMBER, it's their data (work records) shared with CP Plus and YOU, without their consent!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks coupon-mad!
A brief look at the ICO suggested I should contact the organisation, which prior to this I had not done, as others I have seen have not had a great deal of success this way.
With this in mind, do you think it would be prudent to e-mail the senior figures at British Land to elicit their response?
Also, would it be useful to cite this in the POPLA appeal?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards