CP Plus - Advice please

NinjaJ1

Cheers for that.

Coupon-mad

The only final advice so far, is - as you have probably read in those 85 pages(!) - to make sure your POPLA appeal has certain winning words when you get to that stage. We can help.

NinjaJ1

Thanks for that CouponMad.
Letter now sent off and my employer (& Moto Svcs) are copied.
Fingers crossed & will update when I hear anything.

NinjaJ1

Update on this.
I sent the letter, clearly identifying myself as the driver at the time and thus absolving my employer from any further action.
Yesterday, I was forwarded a letter which my employer received (addressed to them) thanking them for MY letter but refusing the appeal.
There is a POPLA code :j.
However, my query now is that if my employer hadn't passed this letter on to me (& they have no need to as they are now out of the frame entirely), I wouldn't even be aware of it having been sent at all.
Should I just wait until CPP get in touch with me direct & then take it to POPLA?

bod1467

CPP will probably argue that your EMPLOYER didn't respond and so your EMPLOYER hasn't absolved their keeper liability. So CPP wrote back to your EMPLOYER.

Is it right? Probably not.

Do CPP give a flying f*** about that? NO!

What should you do? Use the POPLA code anyway and grind them into the ground.

NinjaJ1

I see you point but my employer isn't actually the registered keeper anyway as the car is leased.
The leasing company are the RK and they absolved their liability by supplying my employer as the 'driver' I guess.

bod1467

I understand. I was just posing a nonsensical argument - I mean, CPP are a nonsensical outfit so why would any of us expect any of their actions to make sense anyway?

Just use the POPLA code and get this killed stone dead.

Coupon-mad

NinjaJ1 wrote: »

I see you point but my employer isn't actually the registered keeper anyway as the car is leased.
The leasing company are the RK and they absolved their liability by supplying my employer as the 'driver' I guess.

The clock is ticking; you have a POPLA code so use it in time. DO NOT WAIT.

Do a winning POPLA appeal as per the links in the NEWBIES thread 'how to win at POPLA' and if you want help to perfect it please show us your draft.

I strongly suggest that the POPLA appeal is signed off at the end in your name as driver but ALSO saying 'on behalf of xxxxxxxx company' (the one that got the letter addressed to them) because it's possible the PPC could object if a POPLA code is used by person other than the recipient. Make sure you cover that possibility.

NinjaJ1

All understood - thanks guys.
I will get my letter drafted and will post up for approval.
Cheers.

NinjaJ1

OK I have drafted my POPLA appeal and would appreciate it if
The Wise Ones here would have a read through and advise me accordingly. (There may be a few spacing & text issues on screen as I cut & pasted it from the word document onto here!)


DRAFT POPLA APPEAL

POPLA Code: *************
Vehicle Reg: *****
PPC: CP PLUS
PCN Ref: ************
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: ***********2013
Date of PCN: ************* 2013

December 2013

Dear Sirs,

Firstly I would like to clarify that I was the driver of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

The vehicle is actually registered to a vehicle leasing company from whom my employer, *********plc, lease it on a longterm contract. I have written to CP Plus explaining this but up to the time of writing they are still harassing my employer about the matter. Indeed the POPLA code referred to above was sent to *******plc in response to the letter that I had sent to CP Plus explaining that this has nothing at all to do with ******** plc and admitting to being the driver at the time.

This is not only extremely embarrassing for me but in my opinion shows a distinct lack of professionalism from

CP Plus Ltd in continuing to harass a company who are not in any way responsible or liable for the alleged incident.

The charge notice relates to an overstay in a motorway service area where 2 hours of free parking are allowed.

Having clarified my situation, I would like to appeal the above charge notice on the following grounds:

1) Signage

2) Lack of the PPCs proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

4) Unlawful penalty charge

5) ANPR Accuracy

6) Non Declaration of Business Rates



1) Signage:

The whole basis relating to this charge notice rests on an alleged contract made between myself and CP Plus Ltd.

This assumes (incorrectly) that I had read their signs and therefore broke the alleged contract by overstaying the free parking period of 2 hours. I was not aware of any signs on entering the car park, therefore I believe that the signage was inadequate.

I have recently revisited the site in question to check this situation and whilst I now realise that there are signs on entry to the car park, they are certainly not clear enough in my opinion.

This incident took place in a motorway service area where the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency guidelines clearly state that 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 that the driver entered into a legal contract with them based ENTIRELY on signage, this aspect is essential to their claim, thus I would expect them to provide the requested evidence.

If they cannot do so, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2) Lack of the PPCs proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner

I believe that CP Plus Ltd 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 Ltd must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges.

I do not believe that such a document is in existence.

It is quite possible that as an MSA, the actual landowner may well be the Department for Transport, in which case I have even more doubt that such a contract exists.
I therefore put CP Plus Ltd 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 Ltd and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

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

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £90 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The appellant declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require CP Plus Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc) may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

Indeed in the letter rejecting my initial appeal against this charge (sent to my employer), CP Plus Ltd stated that the

£90 amount being demanded included “our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing & maintaining the necessary equipment to do so”.

This is clearly in contravention of the BPA Code as these are just general business running costs and do not relate to any actual genuine loss suffered by this alleged breach of contract.

The parking fee at the MSA in question is actually £11.00 for 24 hours parking (which I would have been happy to pay had I known about it and even suggested that to CP Plus) – therefore an overstay of just over an hour would have resulted in at worst, a loss of £11 and at best less than 50p!

Therefore I reiterate that the charge of £90 demanded is punitive and is therefore regarded as an unenforceable penalty.

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

4) Unlawful penalty charge

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for what for the most part is a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

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


5) ANPR Accuracy
CP Plus Ltd are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013.

I therefore require CP Plus Ltd to present accurate records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it's vital that CP Plus Ltd produce documented evidence in response to these points.

6) Non Declaration of Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by CP Plus Ltd, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for CP Plus Ltd, I demand to know whether CP Plus Ltd has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put CP Plus Ltd to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at *******Services,********** with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide strict proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

Yours faithfully,

I would really appreciate any input from the experts!
Thanks in advance.