Cp plus parking fine

flickaoflife

yeah I won !!!! I will tag in the evidence pack and response i got

flickaoflife

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
17 September 2014
Reference 1771884003
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Samantha S****** (Appellant)
-v-
CP Plus Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 443140604005 arising out of the presence at MOTO Medway West, on 4 June 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark F*****.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

flickaoflife

1771884003 2 17 September 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 12 June 2014, the Appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
The Operator recorded that the vehicle remained at the site in excess of the 2 hour free parking period.
The Appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground. It is the Appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach. I find that a percentage of the amount comes from overhead costs.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that overhead costs are a general operating costs which would have been incurred whether or not the breach occurred and can consequently not fall within a genuine pre- estimate of loss, in this case, the Operator is claiming their overhead costs to be a loss. I find that this is not a loss incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the Operator has sufficiently shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by the Appellant’s breach.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Farah Ahmad
Assessor

prosnap

Congratulations ... :beer:

Makes you feel all nice and warm inside doesn't it?

Redx

well done

please post the PPC, location, and verdict in here, for posterity

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

congrats

Not_Scammed

Good work.

I always take delight in seeing CP Plus lose at POPLA.

Surely the number of times their industry's own appeal service tells them they have no right to the motorist's money would alert the authorities to a potential fraud being committed.

These parasitic parking companies should have no place in the 21st century. The sooner they are driven back down into the sewers they crawled out of the better.