CP Plus and appeals

HO87

Social_Medium wrote: »

inventive step.

Ah, Patent Law. All is now clear!

Coupon-mad

Social Medium, I like your style! :T

Can you write to the SRA and complain about Graham White aka Roxburghe as well please? We have done lots of times but no action is ever taken.

And did you see our threads about the new POPLA appeals service? Where the PPC is an AOS member we are now advising clued-up people to use the new appeals service if they get a ticket for an incident from 1st October. Never mind the outcome because it's not binding on the motorist but exposes the PPC's tactics to a level of scrutiny by the LondonCouncils and costs them £32+ every single time. Then the motorist can carry on ignoring - or in your case, reporting them etc!

Social_Medium

HO87 wrote: »

Ah, Patent Law. All is now clear!

And my pedantry makes sense, I imagine.

Social_Medium

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you write to the SRA and complain about Graham White aka Roxburghe as well please? We have done lots of times but no action is ever taken.

Judicial review? It's the one thing the SRA lives in fear of. If there have been a number of uninvestigated or plainly ill-considered complaints against a regulated entity (sorry, regulator speak) then the threat of Judicial Review up the bum of the SRA usually sparks some action. All we need is a good QC/Barrister.

RENEGADE_2

Hello Social Medium.
I just wish to point something out.

I am familiar with South West Trains, I know the stations at Salisbury and Weymouth where this is the TOC.

Railway Byelaws exist, yes, and No.14 governs parking matters. However, it is not so that every station car park in the land is subject to these conditions. Great Western Railway stations are managed by APCOA and nowhere on their signage are byelaws mentioned; with South West Trains (SWT), yes the signage does claim that byelaws apply, I nevertheless can confirm, this is not so. It is an example of false representation.

First and foremost, one expects TOCs to act alone in issuing penalties. SWT signage is cleverly contrived to deceive, you read it to assume that SWT is the publisher, only to find in small print on the bottom of the boards that CP Plus is the author.

The first tell-tale sign to confirm that ordinary Contract Law is the legislation and not the byelaws is the rhetoric of CP Plus: PARKING CHARGE NOTICES and not PENALTY charges. Second, the issuing body also handles the appeals. Most people at this stage smell a rat but with genuine Byelaw 14 representations, appeals are handled by a third party. Ultimate non-payment also results in a trial before magistrates whereas all CP Plus publication refers to unpaid fees as "debts" and threatens "County Court" action to recover the demands.

I am not party to the rest of this debate but I can confirm that CP PLUS at SOUTH WEST TRAINS do NOT enforce Railway Byelaws. Don't let them fool you.

Stigy

RENEGADE wrote: »

Hello Social Medium.
I just wish to point something out.

I am familiar with South West Trains, I know the stations at Salisbury and Weymouth where this is the TOC.

Railway Byelaws exist, yes, and No.14 governs parking matters. However, it is not so that every station car park in the land is subject to these conditions. Great Western Railway stations are managed by APCOA and nowhere on their signage are byelaws mentioned; with South West Trains (SWT), yes the signage does claim that byelaws apply, I nevertheless can confirm, this is not so. It is an example of false representation.

First and foremost, one expects TOCs to act alone in issuing penalties. SWT signage is cleverly contrived to deceive, you read it to assume that SWT is the publisher, only to find in small print on the bottom of the boards that CP Plus is the author.

The first tell-tale sign to confirm that ordinary Contract Law is the legislation and not the byelaws is the rhetoric of CP Plus: PARKING CHARGE NOTICES and not PENALTY charges. Second, the issuing body also handles the appeals. Most people at this stage smell a rat but with genuine Byelaw 14 representations, appeals are handled by a third party. Ultimate non-payment also results in a trial before magistrates whereas all CP Plus publication refers to unpaid fees as "debts" and threatens "County Court" action to recover the demands.

I am not party to the rest of this debate but I can confirm that CP PLUS at SOUTH WEST TRAINS do NOT enforce Railway Byelaws. Don't let them fool you.

I agree that CP Plus dont enforce the byelaws, but that's not to say that rail staff cant. Signage needn't be present in that swt needs to be the author, as long as signage is there, cp plus is their agent. Also, signage need only be present for 90% of byelaw 14. cp plus could enforce their tickets if they worded them correctly, as an agent of swt.

Coupon-mad

Yep but CP Plus don't. As we all know they just issue invoices, not real penalties even here. A TOC cannot then follow up an 'invoice' begging letter issued by their agent and pretend it fulfilled the requirement to have served a bylaw-compliant penalty on the driver of a car.

Coupon-mad

The_Seeker wrote: »

U have to be very careful on the railways because if Byelaw 14 is being imposed, it's like a council ticket.

Nope, not quite that simple. Already explained properly above and on other threads.

Hello again PPC poster.