Parking Charge Notice - CP PLUS

Buzby

I remain of the opinion that contrary to the suggestion those appealing that a POPLA number should always be pursued because it costs the PPC 'money' fails the 'life's too short' rule.

The amount of time and effort going in to creating an appeal letter - and the possibility of this being used to crucify you should it ever get to court, never seems to be considered. I have received a number of these PPC letters all citing the 'Protection of Freedoms Act' which is being used as window dressing to 'scare up' the fear factor for the recipient. Further, why no mandatory suggestion if foolish enough to write that 'Without Prejudice' is part of the template - indicating that anything within may not be used in subsequent litigation.

PPCs must be delighted, where they now get responses from those who otherwise would have previously ignored them. The % of those having to defend their parking in court is minuscule compared to the number of begging letters sent out. Since all a PPC needs is a a few template letters and a CCTV camera, the bait is being taken - when it clearly should not.

True, I live in an area where POPLA has no jurisdiction, but it is certainly no champion of the motorist. Until parkers realise this, this charade and needless busy work will continue.

Orrin

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

NOTE TO REGULAR POSTERS: I realise this approach is a departure from the way we have dealt with appeals in the past. I have very broad shoulders - feel free to make any comments you wish - part of the purpose of this exercise is to try and 'fine tune' a slightly more robust approach to PPC appeals as recently suggested by Coupon-mad, and others.

POPLA is just another tactic to avoid paying, along with pressuring the landowner, making a settlement offer or choosing to ignore the PPC completely.

Which tactic is 'best' will depend on the circumstances of the charge, who the PPC and landowner are, and the attitude of the motorist.

zzzLazyDaisy

Buzby wrote: »

I remain of the opinion that contrary to the suggestion those appealing that a POPLA number should always be pursued because it costs the PPC 'money' fails the 'life's too short' rule.

True, I live in an area where POPLA has no jurisdiction, but it is certainly no champion of the motorist. Until parkers realise this, this charade and needless busy work will continue.

Buzby, you are entitled to your view, but since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply to Scotland, the fact is that there is no Registered Keeper liability, so ignoring remains a safe option as the PPC can only persue the driver, and that is not possible if the RK refuses to disclose this information. The PPC cannot take the RK to court, and that is a major difference between Scotland and E&W.

In England and Wales, ignoring is no longer a safe option, because the PPCs can now take the RK to court, and some are now lodging thousands of court claims against RKs who have ignored (read the forums).

In addition, for this OP, the RK has already identified her as the Driver. Are you seriously suggesting that she refuses to avail herself of having the charge cancelled through POPLA (with all its admitted defects) given the 100% success rate of regular posters on here at POPLA - and instead takes the chance of being taken to court at some point in the next 6 years, with all the time, stress and personal attendance that would involve?

These issues have been pointed out to you on numerous occasions yet you continue to give advice which, although appropriate for a jurisdiction to which the 2012 Act does not apply, cannot possibly be good advice where it does apply. You are comparing apples and pears!

I am aware that you already know all this, so I should also make it clear that this post is not for your benefit, but for any unsuspecting reader who may be confused by the apparently contradicting advice from regular MSE posters.

TBH I am beginning to wonder if you have shares in some of the PPCs!

Daisy

nigelbb

Buzby wrote: »

I remain of the opinion that contrary to the suggestion those appealing that a POPLA number should always be pursued because it costs the PPC 'money' fails the 'life's too short' rule.

That would be an exceedingly stupid argument which is probably why nobody suggests it. Since you live in Scotland outside POPLA's jurisdiction & where POFA does not apply & where AFAIK there has never been a case of a PPC taking a motorist to court then it's a bit rich that you are pontificating on what motorists in England & Wales should do.

Buzby

A bit rich, you say?

Well, considering all the pursuit of Scottish motorists by PPCs is by ENGLISH based and registered companies, I think you need to step back a bit. We get junk mail from them, and treat it with the contempt it deserves. If anything, this will truly assist the Yes campaign. Protection Of Freedoms Act? Misrepresentation of the facts is closer!

Just as well we have our own legal system and Parliament too, as you don't appear to be doing well at all, are you? Scotland made clamping illegal over 10 years ago (except for court authorised warrants).

I also note you have no comment on the 'Without Prejudice' safety net that is not used - but hey, if folks are too incapable to take even the most basic safety steps to protect their interests, then perhaps you get the justice you deserve?

As for Daisy's comment - oh, how I laughed. Always a cheap shot that invariably miss the mark. You'll note from an adjacent thread, another poster looks askance at the perceived wisdom of dancing to the POPLA tune - perhaps it is time for you to smell the coffee?

Glas_2

Hi
I also live in Scotland and have been ignoring the letters from CP Plus but have just received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus threatening me with court action if I ignore it.
Any ideas? Has anyone else received this?

zzzLazyDaisy

Glas wrote: »

Hi
I also live in Scotland and have been ignoring the letters from CP Plus but have just received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus threatening me with court action if I ignore it.
Any ideas? Has anyone else received this?

You may safe to continue ignoring as you live in Scotland, but please start your won thread so that regular posters can advise you properly, as hijacking someone else's thread makes it difficult for us to advise the original poster.

Therese1

Daisy, thanks very much for your reply and additional suggestions for my letter! I like the idea of sending them a tenner in the hope that this will clear me - has anyone else done this and been successful?? I'll be honest and say I don't really understand the whole issue with POPLA etc but this would seem like a good plan.

I will put my final draft on later just for quick proof read if anyone can spare 5mins. Thanks!

((I am a bit puzzled and disappointed by the debate that seems to have ensued since my last entry (don't really understand the argument tbh!!). I, like many others have come here for help and have been very pleased with all I've received so far. Please don't muddy the water by confusing me more by jumping in over my query!

Btw I live in Scotland and 'parked' in England - but don't see the relevance of any political (independence or not ) agenda ending up in this post! ))
Glas - no worries -I see you have posted elsewhere now -good luck to both of us!!

Guys_Dad

Buzby wrote: »

A bit rich, you say?

Well, considering all the pursuit of Scottish motorists by PPCs is by ENGLISH based and registered companies, I think you need to step back a bit. We get junk mail from them, and treat it with the contempt it deserves. If anything, this will truly assist the Yes campaign. Protection Of Freedoms Act? Misrepresentation of the facts is closer!

Just as well we have our own legal system and Parliament too, as you don't appear to be doing well at all, are you? Scotland made clamping illegal over 10 years ago (except for court authorised warrants).

I also note you have no comment on the 'Without Prejudice' safety net that is not used - but hey, if folks are too incapable to take even the most basic safety steps to protect their interests, then perhaps you get the justice you deserve?

As for Daisy's comment - oh, how I laughed. Always a cheap shot that invariably miss the mark. You'll note from an adjacent thread, another poster looks askance at the perceived wisdom of dancing to the POPLA tune - perhaps it is time for you to smell the coffee?

I think your suggestion in bold is a good one and will try to remember to put it in any advice I give in future.

As Scotland has different laws and English courts don't have jurisdiction over the border, then those living in England and Wales have to react in a different way from Scottish residents.

Says a lot about Scottish supermarkets and others if they are so ignorant of the laws that they employ English PPCs with no legal power in Scotland to pursue parking claims.

But at least we don't have Alex Salmond.

zzzLazyDaisy

Therese1 wrote: »

Btw I live in Scotland and 'parked' in England - but don't see the relevance of any political (independence or not ) agenda ending up in this post! ))
Glas - no worries -I see you have posted elsewhere now -good luck to both of us!!

Okay, this point is important, and does change things.

The 'contract' was allegedly made in England so English law applies.

However even if you continue to ignore, the chances of court proceedings arising are vastly reduced. Why? Because although it is perfectly It feasible to serve proceedings on someone outside the jurisdiction (ie Scotland), MCOL (the online court service) will not accept a claim against someone outside the jurisdiction, so they would have to lodge an old fashioned paper claim and effect service independently. Then, supposing they get judgement they then have to apply to lodge the judgement in the 'foreign jurisdiction'.

So living in Scotland you are unlikely to be high on the hit list, since as soon as MCOL spits the claim out, the probability is they will bin it and go for easier targets.

What that means in practical terms is that, firstly I wouldn't advise you to make a 'without prejudice offer' of £10, as your risk of ever having to pay anything is relatively low.

Secondly, you could still choose the 'ignore' route for the same reason - they might threaten you, but they are unlikely to come after you in court.

My own view is that it is worth beefing up the Scotland point, and sending an appeal to the PPC, as there is at least a chance that they will agree to cancel the charge. If they don't, well you can choose to go to POPLA or not, as you are not overly exposed.

If you are going to do that, I'll make some changes to the letter.

But before you decide which way to go, it is worth you waiting to hear what other regular posters have to say on this.

Daisy