Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 2nd Aug 17, 10:33 PM
    • 95Posts
    • 71Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus
    • #1
    • 2nd Aug 17, 10:33 PM
    Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus 2nd Aug 17 at 10:33 PM
    Hi, can someone give me more advice please ?????

    The situation that myself and many of my work colleagues have found ourselves in, is regarding private land, parking tickets.

    We all work in Meadowhall shopping centre.

    Some time ago there was signs put up in the (non paying and no time limit) customer car parks. The signs stating on duty staff members were no longer permitted to park in the shopping centre car parks, we are to park on waste land that is separate from the actual shopping centre.

    Signs read as follows.....

    This car park is private land and is for the use of Meadowhall shopping centre customers only
    No parking for on duty staff members, contractors or park and ride users.

    Parking terms and conditions
    You agree to pay a parking charge of £80 if you....

    -park in a non designated area
    -park outside of the marked bays
    -park in these areas as an on duty staff member
    -park causing an obstruction to other uses
    -park in a parent and child bay without a child under 5 accompanying you
    -park in a value badge bay without displaying a valid blue badge in conjunction with the blue badge scheme
    -use the car park for any other reason other than shopping in Meadowhall shopping centre
    -park your vehicle and leave the site by other means


    The area that they designated us is not big enough for all the staff members to actually get a space and the area used is a good 15 minute walk away. The area is dark and not seen as a safe area for us to be walking to and from alone. There as been incidences in this area of Women/girls getting approached by strange men, vehicle's getting damaged and staff members injured due to trips and falls on the rubble surface of the car park.
    Due to this many of us have ended up parking in the shopping centre carparks, resulting in CPPlus giving us PNC Notices.

    We are all now facing unpaid parking ticket chargers for sums of £120 up to £18,000+

    I have read through the newbies thread and started my first appeal.
    I appealed to CPPlus they refused to drop the charge but sent me a POPLA code.

    PNC Date of issue 27/05/2017
    Date of sending notice 13/07/2017
    Reason 7 - parked in a restricted area
    Charge £80 now risen to £120

    I am heading in the right direction with something like this as my POPLA Appeal? ....

    Dear sir madam

    As the registered keeper I appeal on the following grounds
    Cp plus's parking charge notice is not compliant with the protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA) due to the date and the wording used. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to receive any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions be met as stated in paragraph 5, 6, 11 and 12. CPPlus have failed to fulfil the conditions which state than an operator must have provided the keeper with a notice of keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set time line and wording :-

    The notice must be given by—
    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    ’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices showing a purported ‘date issued’ which was already past the 14 days by which, under statute, it had to be in my hands/served. Even if they had posted it that day it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

    In fact, this NTK arrived At lease 47 days after the alleged event. This means that CP Plus have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that CP Plus know this because they have made no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to my next point below.

    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    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 applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only 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 burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016.

    Not sure about what else if anyone can suggest where I should look.

    Many thanks p
Page 12
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Feb 18, 12:18 PM
    • 54,129 Posts
    • 67,793 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    But NO KEEPERS can be held liable.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE.

    Just:

    'that car belongs to a staff member and might not have been used for shopping that day by their wife/adult kids/family member...and we have obtained the duty lists data/had staff names confirmed by our client, which is against the DPA...'
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 14th Feb 18, 12:36 PM
    • 2,636 Posts
    • 3,236 Thanks
    waamo
    But NO KEEPERS can be held liable.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE.

    Just:

    'that car belongs to a staff member and might not have been used for shopping that day by their wife/adult kids/family member...and we have obtained the duty lists data/had staff names confirmed by our client, which is against the DPA...'
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I can't help but wonder if they are filing claims without caring about the correct state of play. It looks like they are riding roughshod over the BPA Code of Practice and the KADOE contract.

    It looks like a feeding frenzy while they know that nobody will do a thing about it.
    This space for hire.
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 14th Feb 18, 9:27 PM
    • 95 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    yes, they are paying up as soon as the court papers arrive, its madness!
    A small few are appealing but cp plus are making it difficult. its hard trying to get 64 year old women to know how to appeal has half of them don't even know how to copy and paste, there just sitting ducks.
    There is 7 others that are at the same stage as me, (letter before claim) so we've all hammed home the same points, no keeper liability.
    2 others are at court and have just sent back there defence so It will be interesting to see how that goes.
    Thanks coupon Mad, ill be putting a letter together for my Mp and will suggest that the others do the same.
    I was asked to do bbc Sheffield but declined at the time, maybe i should contact them again now considering the current amount of money been claimed at court.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 14th Feb 18, 11:54 PM
    • 180 Posts
    • 304 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    This is madness, CP Plus should not be winning ANY cases. What are people doing?!

    Everyone should be appealing as keeper, on day 26 after the windscreen PCN. It's an easy tactic that later wins at POPLA. DO NOT wait for the NTK, the keeper CAN appeal a PCN.

    This is DIABOLICAL and the group needs to contact your local MP, as well as complain to Steve Clark of the BPAevery time someone is refused a POPLA code or told they have to name the driver. EVERY TIME, every case goes to Steve Clark, and he should be told that CP Plus are out of control with their feeding frenzy at this site, which is an utter disgrace:

    steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

    He can only address breaches of the BPA CoP. Refusing to give a POPLA code, and demanding to know who was driving and withholding a POPLA code for that, are both serious breaches.

    This should be so easy, the tactic of appealing on day 26 of a windscreen PCN, and NOT waiting for a NTK, has been tried & tested, since it was first suggested around 2013/2014.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes CP Plus are flouting the BPA's Code of Practice in so many ways but as Graham Rose a director of CP Plus is also on the board of the BPA it wouldn't surprise me if any complaint is brushed under the carpet.

    But NO KEEPERS can be held liable.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE.

    Just:

    'that car belongs to a staff member and might not have been used for shopping that day by their wife/adult kids/family member...and we have obtained the duty lists data/had staff names confirmed by our client, which is against the DPA...'
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Exactly this and it's a scam on an industrial scale and on a par with any Nigerian scam to fleece the vulnerable.

    The MP for the constituancy that Meadowhall is in needs to be made aware that this is happening on her patch.

    gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 15th Feb 18, 12:06 AM
    • 180 Posts
    • 304 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    yes, they are paying up as soon as the court papers arrive, its madness!
    A small few are appealing but cp plus are making it difficult. its hard trying to get 64 year old women to know how to appeal has half of them don't even know how to copy and paste, there just sitting ducks.
    There is 7 others that are at the same stage as me, (letter before claim) so we've all hammed home the same points, no keeper liability.
    2 others are at court and have just sent back there defence so It will be interesting to see how that goes.
    Thanks coupon Mad, ill be putting a letter together for my Mp and will suggest that the others do the same.
    I was asked to do bbc Sheffield but declined at the time, maybe i should contact them again now considering the current amount of money been claimed at court.
    Originally posted by Pinklady0805
    I think it's also worth making the MP for the Meadowhall area aware of the scam going on in her constituency. A scam in which the elderly, infirm and vulnerable are being targeted.

    The MP Gill Furniss is particularly keen on womens and low paid workers rights, as well as being Labour's Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs.

    gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk

    Edit : I'll contact her myself as well to bring it to her attention.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 15-02-2018 at 12:09 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Feb 18, 1:29 AM
    • 54,129 Posts
    • 67,793 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think that CP Plus are lobbying Parliament themselves.

    Them and ParkingEye seem to be in the thick of it, allegedly, no doubt trying to paint a picture of non-rogue operators.

    So CP Plus will HATE this being brought to the attention of relevant Ministers.

    Go for it! Needs exposing. PUBLICITY NEEDED & ALL RELEVANT GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-02-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • tedharris02
    • By tedharris02 16th Feb 18, 1:56 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    tedharris02
    Hi PinkLady

    Are you able to share the defence you used with POPLA please? My mothers in the same situation as you. And they have also ignored doctors notes too. Althouhg its past the POPLA stage now, it will be useful for future ones.
    • Circs123
    • By Circs123 16th Feb 18, 1:59 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Circs123
    I've emailed MP Gill Furniss yesterday and had a reply stating under parliamentary rules they can only assist if I live within the Meadowhall constituency ehich i dont so ive emailed MP Clive Betts who is my MP.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Feb 18, 12:24 AM
    • 54,129 Posts
    • 67,793 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi PinkLady

    Are you able to share the defence you used with POPLA please? My mothers in the same situation as you. And they have also ignored doctors notes too. Althouhg its past the POPLA stage now, it will be useful for future ones.
    Originally posted by tedharris02
    All victims just appeal as KEEPER on day 26 after a windscreen PCN, saying there is no evidence as to who parked the car and no evidence of a contravention, which is denied. POPLA code please.

    That bit is easy, it's done online, take a screenshot to prove submission went through.

    Then at POPLA stage, the registered keeper appeals using the templates in the NEWBIES thread post #3, starting with one saying there is no evidence of any contravention as the car is not parked in a place where parking is not allowed, and there is no evidence as ti the driver, who cannot be assumed to be the registered keeper any more than they could be assumed to be a Meadowhall staff member.

    Then the usual other template posints, to scare CP Plus off.

    If no POPLA code arrives by 40 days after appealing, EVERYONE should bombard the BPA with a complaint every time, demanding their POPLA code and saying it seems that they are being withheld.

    But EVERY victim should be clamouring to the local MP and the press, as 'registered keepers' NEVER saying who parked the car, just exposing the harassment and the fact that staff members have been sued and some numpties have paid silly money equivalent (probably) to a third of a full time annual salary, yet with no liability or evidence, and data being shared about employees that should not be.

    This stinks on an industrial scale and needs to be stopped NOW. The above is a simple way to win.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-02-2018 at 12:27 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

207Posts Today

1,486Users online

Martin's Twitter