CPP parking notice

JonnyB1982 · 22 June 2014 at 3:44PM

Thanks for getting back to me and being so generous with your time. It gives the reassurance that I can win, so I will not be sending them £20 of my hard earned money.

JonnyB1982 · 20 July 2014 at 9:01PM

I've received my NTK and I've had a look at the section 4 of the POFA, paragraph 8 as I had a window ticket. I cannot see any discrepancies/errors with my untrained eye, maybe only the fact the NTK gives the time the ticket was issued but not 'the period of parking to which the notice relates' as in 8.2.a. Not sure this is relevant though.

Again I'd be grateful if an expert could look at this briefly, but if not I shall just send the appeal in the newbies thread.

Link to NTK without http://

i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc414/Jonbek82/CPPAPPEAL2_zps5b9cd430.jpg

ezerscrooge · 20 July 2014 at 9:53PM

The NtK does not idenitify the 'creditor'

The BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). CCP has failed to comply in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012.
The ‘Notice to Keeper’ has indicated that they require a payment to be made to CCP, but there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”, who may, in law, be CCP or some other party.

PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of PoFA does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. To “identify” a “Creditor” a parking company must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has legally contracted.

Also, you have them hook line and sinker on the non-compliant signage. Clamping was outlawed in 2012 - their signage makes clear that they will clamp.

And, the signage states 'penalty' which they have no legal right to do. Therefore their charge cannot possibly be a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, as they have clearly admitted that it is a penalty.