Fell Asleep on Motorway Services

Superscrooge

Last month I had a 5 hour journey to make overnight and felt tired around 3am so pulled into the Strensham Roadchef Services on the M5 and fell asleep in my car. I have now received a charge notice from CP Plus stating I owe them £90 because I was on the service area for just over 3 hours. I've emailed them explaining the circumstances and that I wasn't aware I would be charged £90 if I was there more than 2 hours but they are not interested. The main part of their reply is as below.

Thank you for your correspondence concerning your Charge Notice.

This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme.

Given that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, including those pertaining to their visibility outside of daylight hours, the fact that you were unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. Your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.

Yours faithfully,

CP Plus Limited

They have stated that I can appeal to POPLA and have given me a reference number. Is there anyone can give me some advice regarding what to put in my appeal?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Superscrooge wrote: »

Last month I had a 5 hour journey to make overnight and felt tired around 3am so pulled into the Strensham Roadchef Services on the M5 and fell asleep in my car. I have now received a charge notice from CP Plus stating I owe them £90 because I was on the service area for just over 3 hours. I've emailed them explaining the circumstances and that I wasn't aware I would be charged £90 if I was there more than 2 hours but they are not interested. The main part of their reply is as below.

Thank you for your correspondence concerning your Charge Notice.

This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme.

Given that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, including those pertaining to their visibility outside of daylight hours, the fact that you were unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. Your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.

Yours faithfully,

CP Plus Limited

They have stated that I can appeal to POPLA and have given me a reference number. Is there anyone can give me some advice regarding what to put in my appeal?

Thanks

You need to do quite a bit of research to start understanding all this stuff, so start by reading some recent threads on the first couple of pages on the forum.

Then, in the context of POPLA (a verification code is gold dust and the gateway to getting this kicked into the long grass), you need to carefully study threads and posts in the following links.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

and

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=17

You have 28 days to get off your POPLA appeal from the date of initial rejection, so don't take your eye off that ball. What is the date on the letter with the POPLA code in it?

Don't try and do POPLA on your own - once you've got your head around things, post up a draft of your appeal and we'll give some more advice and help you fine tune things.

We will help, but I'm afraid this isn't a personalised service, so you will have to be prepared to roll your sleeves up to get rid of your problem.

One final, yet very important point, have you complained to the Motorway service Provider and asked them to cancel this charge? Here's plenty of examples where this approach has worked.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249

HTH

Coupon-mad

As per Umkomaas' excellent advice.

Also, simply search the parking forum for the acronym 'MSA' and you will read all the Motorway Service Area threads on this board, and what letters people used in response and to beat the scammers at POPLA! I can recall dozens of MSA threads you will find from that search, at least two have a decent MSA-specific POPLA appeal wording on them. In an MSA there is more to say against the signage than in other POPLA appeals.

Superscrooge

Thanks for the advice. I have now sent an email complaint to Roadchef Motorway Services via their website and will prepare a draft appeal to POPLA

martmonk

I'd be making sure this email address was getting the full force of my complaint...

Simon Turl CEO

Email simon.turl@roadchef.com
Website http://www.roadchef.com
Twitter @RoadChef

Superscrooge

Thanks for the advice to email Simon Turl which I have now done.

I'd be grateful if someone could check my draft POPLA appeal before I email it to them

DRAFT POPLA APPEAL

POPLA Code: ##########
Vehicle Reg: ######
PPC: CP PLUS
PCN Ref: ##########
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 11 September 2013, 03:08 to 06:24
Date of PCN: 23 September 2013

On 23 September 2013 I was sent a charge notice from CP PLUS requiring payment of a charge of £90 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Signage
2 Lack of contract
3 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

1 Signage

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land
will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the
driver should be made aware of from the start. You must
use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your
terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

When the driver arrived on the service area during the hours of darkness no signage was seen warning users of the motorway services that a £90 charge would be imposed if they remained on the service area in excess of two hours. The driver had acted responsibly by stopping at the service area at 0308hrs because they felt tired and had fallen asleep in the vehicle.

There was no contract between the driver and CP Plus. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

Had the driver been made aware that CP Plus would charge £90 if they stayed more than two hours the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the service area within two hours.

Any signage was either non existent or inadequate during the hours of darkness and I require CP PLUS to provide proof of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2 Lack of contract

The absence of signage with CP Plus terms and conditions consequently permitted no contract whatever to be entered into between CP Plus and the driver.
If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass. If this were the case, the driver may be liable to damages.

3. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not beset at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In this case, CP Plus has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £90 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that CP Plus has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £90 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. By my car staying on the service area for an extra 1hr 16 minutes during the quietest time of the night there has been no loss to the landowner. This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Coupon-mad

That's a good start and has the usual killer point about 'no pre-estimate of loss'. But it is currently missing the other killer point requiring the PPC to produce the contract with the landowner to prove that they have been authorised to pursue these tickets in the courts in their own name.

There is more to include when it's an MSA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62870462#Comment_62870462

...that one is very long but shows you not only the landowner contract point but also a lot more about signage (in a MSA all traffic signs have to comply with the TRSGD2002 and these signs do not).


HTH

Superscrooge

Thanks for the advice I'll make further amendments tomorrow

Superscrooge

Thanks for all the advice. I've made amendments as suggested so hopefully the below draft is ok?

DRAFT POPLA APPEAL

POPLA Code: #######
Vehicle Reg: ######
PPC: CP PLUS
PCN Ref: ######
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 11 September 2013, 03:08 to 06:24
Date of PCN: 23 September 2013

On 23 September 2013 I was sent a charge notice from CP PLUS requiring payment of a charge of £90 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 Signage
2 Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
3 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss


1 Signage

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land
will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the
driver should be made aware of from the start. You must
use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your
terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

When the driver arrived on the service area during the hours of darkness no signage was seen warning users of the motorway services that a £90 charge would be imposed if they remained on the service area in excess of two hours. The driver had acted responsibly by stopping at the service area at 3.08am because they felt tired and had then fallen asleep in the vehicle.

There was no contract between the driver and CP Plus. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

Had the driver been made aware that CP Plus would charge £90 if they stayed more than two hours the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the service area within two hours.

Any signage was either non existent or inadequate during the hours of darkness.

Also, as this was a Motorway Services Area. Which is specifically designed for drivers to rest. Operators of Motorway Services Areas (MSAs) and their agents must comply with the requirements of Government policy. These provisions are reflected in the Traffic Signs Agreements into which they enter with the Highways Agency.

The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), published a policy on the provision of roadside facilities on its network. That policy is 'DfT Circular 01/2008: Policy on Service Areas and other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All-purpose Trunk Roads in England'.

''Signing within roadside facilities
100. All traffic signs and markings within roadside facilities should conform to the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 as amended or replaced from time to time.''

I require CP Plus to show proof to the POPLA adjudicator that the DFT/Highways Agency has granted special authorisation for CP Plus's 'traffic signs' in this particular MSA, to be exempt from this policy requirement. It will not be enough for CP Plus to claim that their particular signs placed in this MSA are in CP Plus’s own opinion, not 'traffic signs' when clearly they can indeed be interpreted as such and - unlike other adverts and signs on site - are not intended to direct pedestrians.

I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide evidence of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 and with BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.

As CP Plus are arguing the driver entered into a legal contract with them based ENTIRELY on signage. I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of their evidence that each sign was illuminated for the purpose of 'after dark' reading and to provide mapping of the signage.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.

I believe that CP Plus have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. If they do have such interest then I put them to strict proof to provide POPLA with the Deeds of Title in the land.

In the absence of such title, CP Plus must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence.

I therefore put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between CP Plus and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.


3. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In this case, CP Plus has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £90 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that CP Plus has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case.

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £90 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. By my car staying on the service area for an extra 76 minutes during the quietest time of the night there has been no loss to the landowner.

I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to my vehicle remaining on their service area for an extra 76 minutes.

This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Coupon-mad

That should do the job I think. Well done, send it!

Superscrooge

I've just got my popla appeal result back and my appeal has been allowed which is excellent news.

Until it happened to me I had no idea that Roadchef fined their customers £90 if they remained on the motorway service area more than two hours. I did email Simon Turl, CEO Roadchef as suggested in an earlier post but Roadchef were only willing to reduce the fine to £17 which I wasn't prepared to pay.

The crucial part of the popla assessors decision is below.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the
Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the
effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to
issue a parking charge notice.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor


I would like to thank Umkomaas and Coupon-mad for their excellent advice in helping me draft my appeal.


Best Regards