Read but still confused...!!

TalkGirl_uk

I think it is often as a cause for protection. I know that I am not trained in Law so although I can only do my best by reading/taking advice the wording and phrases use could be used to constituent a level of blame. So really although it is great to be able to show you tried to settle I would expect that a good litigation lawyer could turn my statements on my head and use them against me.

Umkomaas

TalkGirl_uk wrote: »

I think it is often as a cause for protection. I know that I am not trained in Law so although I can only do my best by reading/taking advice the wording and phrases use could be used to constituent a level of blame. So really although it is great to be able to show you tried to settle I would expect that a good litigation lawyer could turn my statements on my head and use them against me.

OK, no worries, it's just that I'm more inclined to keep an option open to me than closed.

Whatever, this isn't going anywhere near a court as we're going to help you kill it off long before that stage. And even if it does near that stage, well the following link will give you some idea of how likely CP+ are to issue court papers. This is the latest list of litigious PPCs.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/179544/response/444525/attach/3/A%20FINAL%20REPLY%20TO%20LEWIS%2085865.doc

Big_Bad_Dad

TalkGirl_uk wrote: »

Big Bad Dad thank you for the extra info. I just wanted to get clarification on the points you raised around the services access routes. Am I able to check if this is relevant to the J8 M20 service at Maidstone? I only ask as i have been looking at Google maps and from their overview there appears to be no additional routes beyond the ones i know are key roads through the complex. Furthermore it seems the complex backs onto the railway.

Hello again TGUK, forgive my late response. These past 24 hours I haven't been online that much to check everything.

I believe all service areas situated at motorways would have sideway non-motorway entrances and exits though with Roadchef they tend to be barrier-operated making things more difficult. The exception is when the service area is located at a junction thereby eliminating the need for alternative entrances since you are straight out onto a big roundabout and can choose in which of two motorway directions you wish to travel, or indeed of you wish to get off the motorway and straight onto ordinary roads, examples include Gordano M5 and Chieveley M4. As such, these facilities will only be at one side of the motorway, without a twin complex across the carriageways.

In your case none of that is essential because the captures would reveal precisely which entrances and exits were used, as can be proven by the background scenery if it is daytime.

Be that as it may, it makes precious little difference to CP Plus. Since they do not specify how soon a vehicle may return, it is either to be assumed that the motorist may never return for the rest of his life, or the free period restarts afresh as soon as it expires. Both are absurd but the former is wholly unrealistic and it is due to the shortcoming in the signage.

Coupon-mad

TalkGirl_uk wrote: »

Of course the without prejudice rule is generally used to prevent statement made in a genuine attempt to settle from being used as evidence within court.

Link gives you more information on it http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-107-7511

Please do remove the 'Without Prejudice' from your appeal as it is not appropriate. You are using legalese where it is not appropriate and in doing so, it shows you to be someone who doesn't understand it. I haven't studied law either - but I know from this forum not to use those words in an appeal. Look at this thread like yours:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64268065#Comment_64268065

You are not making an offer of money to 'settle' so it is not appropriate nor needed.

4consumerrights

@Talkgirl_UK -please tell me you didn't put "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" on your letter especially if you used this wording at the end:

If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking this matter further, please note that I intend to reclaim my expenses from you. These may include, but are not limited to the cost of postage, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees and additional expenses appropriate to the challenge.

I reserve the right to add further support and appeal points if necessary, in defence of the continued action.

If you've combined the two then that negates the whole purpose of the above paragraph. You actually would want to produce this letter at a later stage to demonstrate how you initially appealed the parking charge and what the consequences would be should they continued to pursue the matter.

"Without Prejudice" comes at a later stage in proceedings as a useful means of negotation settlement between parties without admitting liability and is totally out of context here and only emphasises your lack of understanding by this statement:

I think it is often as a cause for protection. I know that I am not trained in Law so although I can only do my best by reading/taking advice the wording and phrases use could be used to constituent a level of blame. So really although it is great to be able to show you tried to settle I would expect that a good litigation lawyer could turn my statements on my head and use them against me.

TalkGirl_uk

@4comsumerrights No I haven't, I sent it off without it. After the initial comment I went away and began reading more into the statement as I wanted to be sure I was including it for the right reasons.

As a result of further reading I agree with your later comments so I felt best to remove it for the moment. Again thanks for the information.

TalkGirl_uk

Surprise surprise! Appeal rejected. Please see their response:

"Dear Madam,

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.

The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.

In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.

We can confirm that we will hold the charge at the current rate of £90 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.

Yours faithfully,

CP Plus Limited

Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.org.uk!and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our appeals office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.

Your POPLA reference code is! XXXXXXXXX

Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you may be requested to pay the charge at the full amount and will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate."

So now I get on with building my POPLA appeal. I do like how they have ignored one of the points and put the final POPLA paragraphs were in read. Is there anything I need to be aware of from this email reply?

AoD

Standard pathetic reply we have come to expect. Nothing to worry about. You have your POPLA code so draft your POPLA appeal and post back here for comments.

Hot_Bring

TalkGirl_uk wrote: »

S

The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.

Oh dear CP Plus - POPLA appeal LOST !!!!!!

You now need to write a POPLA appeal and make sure to highlight the bolded quote in the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss section pointing out that operational costs, such as installing and maintaining equipment, should not be included.

How stupid are CP Plus .... really !!!!!!

Coupon-mad

See the 'Newbies' sticky thread for 'How to win at POPLA' examples.