CP Plus and appeals

Social_Medium

I should start by saying that I am legally qualified and, though this is in the area of intellectual property, it has undoubtedly helped me negotiate what, for me, has been this new minefield of parking notices and fines.

I question the advice often given in relation to CP Plus to not appeal. I understand that this, by and large, is to prevent declaring oneself as the driver at the time the PCN (or invoice) was issued. But appealing has two distinct advantages, one in law the other an unintended consequence of CP Plus and its appalling administration.

1. Should the matter come to court there is evidence in mitigation that you have taken proportionate action to limit any loss to the plaintiff and to follow the procedures required by the plaintiff.

2. In my experience (read on) you will not receive a reply in relation to the appeal, which means the plaintiff is in breach of their own procedures.

In August of this year, I parked at my normal railway station. I have parked there for ten years and have always paid the escalating cost of parking. On returning to my car I had the dreaded ‘yellow peril’ fixed to my windscreen. Now this is a railway station car park owned by South West Trains and covered by byelaws which, incidentally, only permit the train operator to issue a penalty in the event of non-payment, not failure to display. Unfortunately I have not progressed this case far enough to test that.

I had paid. It seems, however, that my ticket had flipped over, probably as I closed the door. Fortunately I always keep both ticket and receipt together and the credit card portion was visible and it was clear that it was attached to the ticket. In law I had paid and displayed and I took appropriate photographs to demonstrate this.

Now it gets interesting. CP Plus states on its terms and conditions that appeals will be replied to within 28 days, if not one is to conclude that the appeal was successful. Needless to say I never had a reply from ‘appeals@cp-plus.co.uk’ to uphold my appeal or decline it. I did receive ever-increasing threats from CP Plus, never referencing my appeal. 28 days passed. Nothing.

Eventually I received a letter from a solicitor threatening court action. I won’t go into detail here. I simply replied to the solicitor stating that my contract by virtue of the PCN issued by CP plus required a reply to my appeal within 28 days – as I never received any correspondence referencing my appeal, it had been upheld by virtue of the wording ‘if no reply within 28 days’. I also informed the solicitor that I was reporting him to the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority (SRA) as the content and style of his letter breached the code of conduct. The case is scheduled to be heard shortly.

I have heard no more during the last three weeks, extending beyond the 14 day threat of court action. I imagine CP Plus will give up with me as in my reply to their solicitor I listed damages and the fact that I would employ leading Counsel in any court case and claim costs. This is a shame as I very much looked forward to crucifying them in court. I am currently threatening South West Trains with legal action for failing to display the financial consequences (level of any penalty) on their notices and that in stating this relates to ‘paying and displaying’ they are in breach of byelaw 14 which only covers paying.

I thought this might be helpful to others.

trisontana

Do you mean CP plus?. Never heard of PC plus.

BASFORDLAD

trisontana wrote: »

Do you mean CP plus?. Never heard of PC plus.

What!

where were you in the 90's

It was a quality pc magazine!

trisontana

But not as a PPC or DCA!

bazster

Lucky for you it's not going to court because if you'd tried to claim costs for "leading Counsel" in the Small Claims Track you'd have got a nasty (and expensive) surprise.

Who was the solicitor (as if we can't guess)?

HO87

Thank you for setting out your experience but I would suggest that it is not the average and needs to be put in context.

One presumes that if you are legally qualified you will appreciate that the heart of the argument that is generally advanced here is that the majority of private parking companies are in no position to offer a contract in the first instance. There is therefore no contract to engage with, whether by appeal or otherwise, and in any event it has been clear to us here for a long time that the charges these companies seek to levy are contractual penalties that are not enforceable at law - Dunlop v New Garage Motor Co [1915]. That aside, after many years of complaints to them even the British Parking Association now acknowledge that charges must represent genuine pre-estimates of losses.

I would guess that the solicitor to whom you refer is one Michael Sobell, trading as Graham White. The letters bearing his name are actually produced, we believe, by a debt collection agency who operate from the same address. There have been a considerable number of complaints made to the SRA regarding his letters and we are understand that he is currently subject to supervision. If you know of a specific disciplinary hearing then we would welcome details.

Could you explain how SWTrains are themselves in breach of Byelaw 14? I think you may mean that the offence alleged on the charge notice you received does not exist but as that notice forms no part of the Byelaw process how does this have any bearing?

Finally, if you are qualified why on earth would you want to employ leading counsel? Their lunchtime tab alone is likely to be exorbitant and their final account unbelievable. How did you intend to recover the costs?

It is a shame, in some respects that you had not taken the time to read through just a few of the many thousands of threads here which deal with the companies and individuals to whom you refer and may have saved you some considerable angst.

Finally, just nit-picking really, but since when have claimants reverted to being plaintiffs, the change was 14 years ago?

Social_Medium

trisontana wrote: »

Do you mean CP plus?. Never heard of PC plus.

Yes

And I imagine that was obvious to all but the most challenged reader from the text. I apologise. I knew I had done it, but didn't realise until checking that the advanced editor allowed the thread title to be edited. Thank you for pointing this out in such a friendly, civilised and helpful way.

Social_Medium

bazster wrote: »

Lucky for you it's not going to court because if you'd tried to claim costs for "leading Counsel" in the Small Claims Track you'd have got a nasty (and expensive) surprise.

Not at all. It can't be claimed. But when being threatened by someone who is clearly inept, reply in kind.

bazster

Social_Medium wrote: »

Not at all. It can't be claimed. But when being threatened by someone who is clearly inept, reply in kind.

So you think that threat caused anything other than laughter in the CP Plus office?

To be honest you'd have handled this whole thing in a far less clumsy way if you'd come here for advice first, legally qualified or no.

Social_Medium

HO87 wrote: »

One presumes that if you are legally qualified you will appreciate that the heart of the argument that is generally advanced here is that the majority of private parking companies are in no position to offer a contract in the first instance. There is therefore no contract to engage with, whether by appeal or otherwise, and in any event it has been clear to us here for a long time that the charges these companies seek to levy are contractual penalties that are not enforceable at law - Dunlop v New Garage Motor Co [1915]. That aside, after many years of complaints to them even the British Parking Association now acknowledge that charges must represent genuine pre-estimates of losses.

Obviously I have not been clear. I do not mean contract in terms of payment for goods or services or any penalties as a result thereof, where we are in agreement. On the reverse of the 'PCN' CP Plus states:

"Appeals cannot be dealt with over the telephone and must be made in writing to the above address within 7 days of the date of issue. If you do not receive a reply within 28 days after appealing, your appeal has been accepted and no further correspondence will be sent."

By following the appeals process I have a contract with them, as set out in their terms and condition, for my appeal. The terms are clear.

HO87 wrote: »

I would guess that the solicitor to whom you refer is one Michael Sobell, trading as Graham White.

Not in this case.

HO87 wrote: »

Could you explain how SWTrains are themselves in breach of Byelaw 14?

On their (not CP Plus's) parking notice, South West Trains claim the byelaws afford the right to enforce a penalty charge for not displaying a ticket, byelaw 14 affords no such right.

HO87 wrote: »

Finally, if you are qualified why on earth would you want to employ leading counsel?

Any number of reasons: I am not a solicitor or barrister. In litigation my expertise is limited to a niche area of law. I am owed a number of professional favours. Believe me, personally I have no need to be concerned about the cost of leading Counsel, but thank you for your concern.

HO87 wrote: »

It is a shame, in some respects that you had not taken the time to read through just a few of the many thousands of threads here which deal with the companies and individuals to whom you refer and may have saved you some considerable angst.

I did. I thought I would share my experience and add something in terms of CP Plus and the frailty of its appeal process if followed. I am sorry it was not welcome by those who have a much longer history here.

HO87 wrote: »

Finally, just nit-picking really, but since when have claimants reverted to being plaintiffs, the change was 14 years ago?

Depends where you are, in Scotland they are 'pursuers'. 13 & 1/2 years (if we are nit-picking) to be exact. I am very old, old habits die hard and, as most of my business is in the States and Hong Kong, plaintiff is very much the right term. Apologies that my use caused you to pick nits.

Finally, just nit-picking really, "MSE requests you give new posters a chance! Please be especially nice!" ..... I imagine it was developed for a reason, perhaps because this is not an immediately welcoming place?

andy13

Yawn.........