CP PLus. Cunning Stunt.

doublinedancer

I'm a dummy. Now i look carefully at both tickets i can see that the first was sent to the registered keeper. I lease the vehicle and have challenged with a letter from the RK giving authorisation to liase direct with CPP. I have also stated that all correspondence should be addressed to me.

The second one is addressed to me so maybe this changes things, however,

Shouldn't they send me a Notice to Hirer.
In view of the authorisation shouldn't they respond after the first challenge.

Looking at Marktheshark's response, does the same apply to Roadchef? Hope so.

Northlakes

The first thing to do is to try and get a cancellation from Roadchef explaining you had broken down so there was no way you could leave within the time period allowed.

See where you go from there but do the soft appeal to CP+as the 'keeper'.

doublinedancer

I'll do the soft appeal but i wouldn't mind costing them money at POPLA rather than getting it cancelled by Roadchef. If I can get them to !!!! up the procedures.

Aren't motorway services covered by different regulations?

Thanks a bunch for replies. All good sense as usual.

Edna_Basher

doublinedancer wrote: »

Shouldn't they send me a Notice to Hirer.

From our experience, it seems that CP Plus's Notices to Keeper and Notices to Hirer are identical in every respect.........except for the Notice Reference Number! It's hardly surprising that you became confused.

Are both the NtK and NtH entitled "Charge Notice" and do their respective Reference Numbers end in a "11" and "22" by any chance?

In April, our company received a CP Plus NtH for an alleged charge incurred at a Moto service station. Their NtH claimed that either we were the registered keeper or that the registered keeper had named us as the driver. Of course neither of these claims was correct; the registered keeper (i.e. the lease company) had notified CP Plus that our company was the vehicle's hirer. It seems that CP Plus were too lazy to bother drafting a specific Notice to Hirer.

In our case, neither the NtK nor the NtH made any mention of keeper liability under POFA 2012. After we had highlighted this in our appeal letter (sent 21 days after the date of issue of the NtH), CP Plus cancelled the charge within a week of receiving our appeal.

Have a look to see if your NtH makes any mention of POFA 2012. If not, this should be a very easy win for the "keeper / hirer".

doublinedancer

Thanks for the reply EB. I tried to log on from home but i couldn't get on the site presumably because the mail addresses are different. The original registration has been done from my office so apologies for the delay in responding.

You are right. The NTH ends in 32 and the NTK ends in 11. Both are titled Charge Notice and are identical except for the different Ref. Numbers. Neither make reference to POFA.

I'll challenge as you suggest just before the 28 day period.. They have obviously read the first challenge and just sent another Charge Notice to the respondent demanding the drivers details in their normal format.

Thanks again to everyone for their input.