We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CP Plus, POPLA Appeal, Evidence Pack received, advice on next steps
folmesie
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi
I've followed lots of advice and guidance from this forum (thank you to all who have contributed), and now seem to be at the final stage where I need to rebut the evidence pack that has been supplied.
I've completed all stages up to now without registering or contributing but I now wanted to ensure that my next (and final) step covers all I need and am asking for some advice on how to proceed.
I'm not sure what info you need to help me but happy to add anything to this thats needed.
APPEAL SUMMARY
My appeal presented three arguments, based on templates and guidance from the forum
1. a binding contract is not agreeable or enforceable
2. a fine is a deterrent for park and ride offenders, i provided evidence of purchases
3. the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justified
APPEAL REJECTION
this is the rejection letter from CP Plus
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above stated Parking Charge Notice. This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme. We remind you that customers may only remain on site for a maximum of 2 hours without paying for parking. Given that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, the fact that you were seemingly unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. 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 for a further 14days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.
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 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 number is: XXXXXX. 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.
EVIDENCE PACK
Below is information from the evidence pack following appeal to POPLA
Case Summary
We received correspondence from Mr XXX who appealed his PCN on the basis that he was a customer at the time, of which he provided evidence. He also stated that he believed the Charge to be disproportionate.
MOTO Cherwell has 2 hours free parking, after which charges apply. We have not received the £15 parking payment for the additional 51 minutes that this vehicle remained on site.
In Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge Notice on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is not a successful defence in law.
In the Court of Appeal judgment, Sir Timothy Lloyd held that “for the law to prohibit a provision such as the overstaying charge, on the basis that it bears no relationship to the loss suffered...would fail to take account of the nature of the contract, with its gratuitous but valuable benefit of two hours’ free parking, and of the entirely legitimate reason for limiting that facility to a two hour period.”
The Judges considered whether a PCN could be invalidated on the grounds that the overstay was a genuine mistake, that the PCN is a penalty, that the Operator has no commercial interest or should charge a more modest amount and that the charge was a deterrent to the motorist. In the Court of Appeal judgment, these legal arguments were analysed and it was unanimously agreed that not one of them presented a legally valid basis for invalidating the charge.
Instead, it was found that the provision of a free parking facility on a retail park is a useful service for motorists and shopkeepers alike. In the Judges’ estimation, a driver who overstays the allowed time period inconveniences the former group and causes a material loss to the latter.
It was found that, in order to facilitate a turnover of visitors, the Terms and Conditions of a car park should provide a “disincentive to drivers.” The imposition of such charges was deemed to be “not extravagant or unconscionable and the contract was therefore enforceable at common law.”
The Court of Appeal also explained that municipal parking charges are identical in nature and that only this method of enforcement, rather than a graduated system of charges where motorists pay a fee proportionate to the length of the time they have overstayed, can deter widespread abuse of car parks.
We note that the appellant in this case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the judgments passed down thus far by the County Court and the Court of Appeal have provided a clear endorsement of Operators’ rights to issue a PCN and established a legal precedent rebutting drivers who appeal a PCN on grounds that the charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher Courts and would submit that the appellant in this case should not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.
Whilst we note that the above case relates to a PCN issued at a free car park with a limited time period, we highlight that not only has the appellant received the valuable benefit of 2 hours free parking which is on offer to all drivers, Mr XXX remained on site for the period after the 2 hour limit for which he should have paid £15. As such there is a clear loss to be recovered in addition to the above legal case which did not involve paying for parking.
Notwithstanding the above case, we have provided a table in Section G which outlines and details the costs that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, would be incurred in this case. As you can see this clearly demonstrates the Charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
While we are willing to consider evidence of custom as part of the appeals process, Mr XXX use of the site does not render the PCN invalid in any way as users of the site are required to adhere to the advertised free two hour time limit, and agree to pay for additional parking if they remain on site after this time and use of the services does not exempt drivers from this.
We maintain that we have received no genuine mitigating circumstances or evidence for which we should cancel the PCN and our position remains that Mr XXX entered into a valid contract and should pay the valid charges as per the signage on the site.
GPEOL
Initial Loss - Unpaid Parking Fee £15
ANPR Image Verification £0.75
DVLA Charge £2.50
Document Print £0.30
Postage Charge £1.84
Responding to Appeal £11.84
Responding to POPLA Appeal £73.98
REGISTERED KEEPER AND LIABILITY TRAIL
in this section they have detailed the registered keeper only. They have not been informed of the driver.
I've followed lots of advice and guidance from this forum (thank you to all who have contributed), and now seem to be at the final stage where I need to rebut the evidence pack that has been supplied.
I've completed all stages up to now without registering or contributing but I now wanted to ensure that my next (and final) step covers all I need and am asking for some advice on how to proceed.
I'm not sure what info you need to help me but happy to add anything to this thats needed.
APPEAL SUMMARY
My appeal presented three arguments, based on templates and guidance from the forum
1. a binding contract is not agreeable or enforceable
2. a fine is a deterrent for park and ride offenders, i provided evidence of purchases
3. the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justified
APPEAL REJECTION
this is the rejection letter from CP Plus
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above stated Parking Charge Notice. This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme. We remind you that customers may only remain on site for a maximum of 2 hours without paying for parking. Given that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, the fact that you were seemingly unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. 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 for a further 14days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.
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 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 number is: XXXXXX. 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.
EVIDENCE PACK
Below is information from the evidence pack following appeal to POPLA
Case Summary
We received correspondence from Mr XXX who appealed his PCN on the basis that he was a customer at the time, of which he provided evidence. He also stated that he believed the Charge to be disproportionate.
MOTO Cherwell has 2 hours free parking, after which charges apply. We have not received the £15 parking payment for the additional 51 minutes that this vehicle remained on site.
In Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge Notice on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is not a successful defence in law.
In the Court of Appeal judgment, Sir Timothy Lloyd held that “for the law to prohibit a provision such as the overstaying charge, on the basis that it bears no relationship to the loss suffered...would fail to take account of the nature of the contract, with its gratuitous but valuable benefit of two hours’ free parking, and of the entirely legitimate reason for limiting that facility to a two hour period.”
The Judges considered whether a PCN could be invalidated on the grounds that the overstay was a genuine mistake, that the PCN is a penalty, that the Operator has no commercial interest or should charge a more modest amount and that the charge was a deterrent to the motorist. In the Court of Appeal judgment, these legal arguments were analysed and it was unanimously agreed that not one of them presented a legally valid basis for invalidating the charge.
Instead, it was found that the provision of a free parking facility on a retail park is a useful service for motorists and shopkeepers alike. In the Judges’ estimation, a driver who overstays the allowed time period inconveniences the former group and causes a material loss to the latter.
It was found that, in order to facilitate a turnover of visitors, the Terms and Conditions of a car park should provide a “disincentive to drivers.” The imposition of such charges was deemed to be “not extravagant or unconscionable and the contract was therefore enforceable at common law.”
The Court of Appeal also explained that municipal parking charges are identical in nature and that only this method of enforcement, rather than a graduated system of charges where motorists pay a fee proportionate to the length of the time they have overstayed, can deter widespread abuse of car parks.
We note that the appellant in this case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the judgments passed down thus far by the County Court and the Court of Appeal have provided a clear endorsement of Operators’ rights to issue a PCN and established a legal precedent rebutting drivers who appeal a PCN on grounds that the charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher Courts and would submit that the appellant in this case should not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.
Whilst we note that the above case relates to a PCN issued at a free car park with a limited time period, we highlight that not only has the appellant received the valuable benefit of 2 hours free parking which is on offer to all drivers, Mr XXX remained on site for the period after the 2 hour limit for which he should have paid £15. As such there is a clear loss to be recovered in addition to the above legal case which did not involve paying for parking.
Notwithstanding the above case, we have provided a table in Section G which outlines and details the costs that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, would be incurred in this case. As you can see this clearly demonstrates the Charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
While we are willing to consider evidence of custom as part of the appeals process, Mr XXX use of the site does not render the PCN invalid in any way as users of the site are required to adhere to the advertised free two hour time limit, and agree to pay for additional parking if they remain on site after this time and use of the services does not exempt drivers from this.
We maintain that we have received no genuine mitigating circumstances or evidence for which we should cancel the PCN and our position remains that Mr XXX entered into a valid contract and should pay the valid charges as per the signage on the site.
GPEOL
Initial Loss - Unpaid Parking Fee £15
ANPR Image Verification £0.75
DVLA Charge £2.50
Document Print £0.30
Postage Charge £1.84
Responding to Appeal £11.84
Responding to POPLA Appeal £73.98
REGISTERED KEEPER AND LIABILITY TRAIL
in this section they have detailed the registered keeper only. They have not been informed of the driver.
0
Comments
-
HOW TO REBUT A PPC's EVIDENCE PACK
Here's an excellent example of how one poster dealt effectively and comprehensively with a PPC's Evidence Pack. I'm sure this will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911
And another one to consider.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Their version sounds a bit like you admitted who was driving! Did you? You said ''They have not been informed of the driver.'' I hope not!
With CP Plus you don't do that and you win every time, just by pointing out the Notice to Keeper isn't worded for keeper liability (in detail).
If your wording did not say 'I did this, I did that - I parked' then for heavens sake add the flaws in the NTK when compared to para 9 of the POFA Schedule 4. You win.
There are no PPCs at the moment where the NTK is compliant in my view, not even ParkingEye. Certainly not CP Plus who no longer try for keeper liability. Have another look at the PCN, it is in fact obvious they only hold the driver liable so there's no need to argue much more but a keeper MUST say why there can be 'no keeper liability'.
Having said that, did you not say 'no landowner contract' either (pretty much 90% of POPLA appeals are currently being won on that basis).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
They make great play of Beavis v PE, but it is a work in progress and should not have been mentioned. Also, in that case there was no facility to pay for extra time, and therefore there was, (it was concluded), commercial justification in charging a penalty. In your case you can stay as long as you like, as long as you pay.
Also, the charge is likely to be considerably more than a local authority charge for not paying, and certainly no a GPEOL, they have shot themselves in the foot.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I like this bit in their evidence pack:
The Court of Appeal also explained that municipal parking charges are identical in nature and that only this method of enforcement, rather than a graduated system of charges where motorists pay a fee proportionate to the length of the time they have overstayed, can deter widespread abuse of car parks.
Which is immediately contradicted by this bit
Initial Loss - Unpaid Parking Fee £15
So they are saying a graduated system of payments could not work...then admitting they use a graduated system of payments.
I would call this bit out as a lie too:
Responding to POPLA Appeal £73.98
CP Plus use Ranger Services to answer POPLA appeals, and they don't charge £73.98!Dedicated to driving up standards in parking0 -
Thanks all for your inputs,
I have now rebutted the evidence pack with an email back to POPLA and will advise you of the outcome.0 -
Hi All
I've now received further evidence, which is the agreement between MOTO and CP Plus.
Should I respond further ?0 -
you will need to post it up for people to comment ...
Ralph:cool:0 -
Here it is....
Witness Statement
Dear Sir/Madam
On behalf of (landowner) I can confirm the following details:
The site is MOTO Cherwell the Landowner/owner of the site is Moto Hospitality Ltd, and the Operator is CP Plus Ltd.
Furthermore I can confirm that the Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement as the site. This authority was in effect during the tie the PCN was issued on 7th May 2-15. Included in this authority is the authorization by the Landowners for the Operator to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site I a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of paring.
The terms and conditions are clearly set out on the signage on the suet and, where applicable, with any permit and dispensation for use at the site. The issuing of a parking charge notice is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also clearly set out on the signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit and dispensation for use at the site.
The Operator is authorized to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms ad conditions referred to above. The Operator is also authorized by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charge in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.
I confirm that I am authorized to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
Name xxx
Position Commercial Manager
For and behalf of Moto Hospitality Ltd
Date 25/8/15
Signature0 -
Dear Mr Commercial Manager
Can you confirm that Moto Hospitality Ltd approved and agree the genuine pre-estimate of their loss provided by their agent CP Plus Ltd.( enclosed )
Failure to reply to this letter within 7 days will be deemed that they do not .
Any supposed contract to park would be with MOTO as the signage clearly identifies that CP Plus operate on their behalf as their agent .
Could you therefore please confirm that MOTO incurred losses of over £70 in dealing with my POPLA appeal .
Yours
I would send a copy of this letter to POPLA and request their assessment delayed until a reply is received from MOTO because you don't believe they have .0 -
I also hope youve followed the 'no keeper liability" route and not identified the driver . CPPlus make an @rse of this and its a guaranteed win0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.1K Spending & Discounts
- 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards