Motorway Services. CP Plus again

doublinedancer

Hi Everyone.

CP Plus Again. I’ve made the mistake of submitting my appeal to POPLA after receiving their rejection with the code however, this has meant that they have my appeal before they need to respond and have been able to cover many of the points raised regarding hire vehicles, copy of the contract etc.

Their evidence pack summary begins:

We have received correspondence from XXXX our company, who appealed on behalf of the driver on the basis that he ran out of hours and therefore had to wait for a replacement driver to reach him. They also state that they believe the charge is not a GPEOL and that the signage is deficient.

They then submit 6 paragraphs taken from the Beavis judgement concluding:

“We note that the appellant in the case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the judgements passed down thus far by the County Court and the Court of Appeal have provided clear endorsement of Operators rights to issue a PCN and establish a legal precedent rebutting drivers who app4eal a PCN on grounds that a charge does not reflect a GPEOL.

We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher courts and would submit that the appellant nin this case should not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.”

They then submit a claim for costs

Cost of parking £21.00
ANPR Image verification 0.75
DVLA 2.50
Document print 0.30
Postage 1.84
Responding to Appeal 11.83
POPLA 73.98




They have included a statement from Paul Comer giving them authority to act in their own name.
They finish with “ We can confirm that XXXX (company) are appealing on behalf of the ldriver, as the hirer of the vehicle. At no point is liability for this Notice denied. We have also included the hire agreement etc.
The grounds for my next submission to POPLA would be:

POFA 2012.
The Charge Notice claims that we are the registered keeper or that the registered keeper has named us as the driver neither of which are true. We have not received either a Notice to Keeper or a Notice to Hirer as required under the Act and there is no mention of POFA 2012 whatsoever.

• 13. (2)..
  (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
• In this case we are a company not a named person.
• If VAT has not been charged the claim for GPEOL must be considered.
• Beavis has no bearing on this case in a Motorway Service area.
• This Operator has failed to serve in a durable medium, ANY information as defined in these Regulations for Distance Contracts
• There were two drivers, one who parked and a recovery driver who then drove the vehicle away.

I would be very grateful to anyone who may be able to add further comments which will assist me.

My original challenge was submitted to POPLA on the 5th October and the evidence pack is dated the 12th. (but just received). I assume that I have only 7 days to respond which means Monday, and I’m away from 4.30pm today for the weekend…brilliant. Be a busy Monday methinks.

Thanks to any contributors. Don’t know where any of us would be without the folks at MSE.

ampersand

dd please delete this from here and post it on your original Thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69243992#Comment_69243992

- keeps everything together )

doublinedancer

OK Ampersand, It's not the same one but identical situation so I'll delete. Can you advise how?? Is it just highlight delete or is there a way to move it?


Thanks

ampersand

Right, connectivity muck is starting up badly, so just to re-cap on lost post -

Yes, saw word 'again' in your title, but the sense of what this means is unclear in your post, especially when you have now started 3 parking threads, using 2 identities!

So, please distinguish between:

- your writing and theirs
- one invoice and any other, making clear which stage each is at and your further ?s against each.
#
Is this formatting now correct? [my ?s to you in bold blue, ppc 'evidence' in italics.]

'Motorway Services. CP Plus again

Hi Everyone.

CP Plus Again.

I’ve made the mistake of submitting my appeal to POPLA after receiving their rejection with the code [but is this for another invoice, or the one you first posted about? - you have had 2 mse i.d.'s for 3 parking threads, therefore inviting confusion]

However, this has meant that they have my appeal before they need to respond and have been able to cover many of the points raised regarding hire vehicles, copy of the contract etc.

Their evidence pack summary[ again, for which invoice?] begins:

We have received correspondence from XXXX our company, who appealed on behalf of the driver on the basis that he ran out of hours and therefore had to wait for a replacement driver to reach him. They also state that they believe the charge is not a GPEOL and that the signage is deficient.

They then submit 6 paragraphs taken from the Beavis judgment [spelling] concluding:

“We note that the appellant in the case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the judg[STRIKE]e[/STRIKE]ments passed down thus far by the County Court and the Court of Appeal have provided clear endorsement of Operators rights to issue a PCN and establish a legal precedent rebutting drivers who app4eal a PCN on grounds that a charge does not reflect a GPEOL.

We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher courts and would submit that the appellant nin this case should not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.”

They then submit a claim for costs.

Cost of parking £21.00
ANPR Image verification 0.75
DVLA 2.50
Document print 0.30
Postage 1.84
Responding to Appeal 11.83
POPLA 73.98


They have included a statement from Paul Comer giving them authority to act in their own name.[say who Paul Comer is]
They finish with 'We can confirm that XXXX (company) are appealing on behalf of the driver, as the hirer of the vehicle. At no point is liability for this Notice denied. We have also included the hire agreement....' etc.

#

The grounds for my next submission to POPLA would be:

POFA 2012.
The Charge Notice claims that we are the registered keeper or that the registered keeper has named us as the driver, neither of which are true.

[We have not received either a Notice to Keeper or a Notice to Hirer as required under the Act and there is no mention of POFA 2012 whatsoever.
[why do you use 'we' throughout? 'the appellant' ]

• 13. (2)..
  (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
• In this case we are a company not a named person.
• If VAT has not been charged the claim for GPEOL must be considered.
• Beavis has no bearing on this case in a Motorway Service area.
• This Operator has failed to serve in a durable medium, ANY information as defined in these Regulations for Distance Contracts
• There were two drivers, one who parked and an uncited recovery driver who then drove the broken-down vehicle away.[mitigation is irrelevant, we know, but a reminder is not misplaced;)]
  

I would be very grateful to anyone who may be able to add further comments which will assist me.

My original challenge was submitted to POPLA on the 5th October and the evidence pack is dated the 12th. (but just received). I assume that I have only 7 days to respond which means Monday, and I’m away from 4.30pm today for the weekend…brilliant. Be a busy Monday methinks.

Thanks to any contributors. Don’t know where any of us would be without the folks at MSE.
#
dd - have spent all the time I can on this now.
Please await other help - but enjoy your w/e :-).

The_Deep

What happens in Beavis is irrelevant. Beavis ignored the PPC, was in a car park where there was no facility to buy longer than the free period, and the charge was a penalty which the Judges decided was commercially justified.


This does not apply in a MSA where, as long as you pay the charges, you can stay as long as you like.


You owe them £21.00 plus perhaps a tenner for administration. They cannot claim the £2.50 for the DVLA.

doublinedancer

I'm really sorry Ampersand, don't know how to drive your site yet. Is it OK if next week I get your advice on using the same username on several PC's. My home one wouldn't allow me on the site so had to set up a new one.


Very many thanks for rearranging the post and for the clarity of presenting it. All points noted.

Parking-Prankster

I have replied privately, but in essence...
1) The notice to hirer is a joke and not valid. A limited company cannot be the driver so there is neither hirer not driver liability
2) Beavis does not apply. The £21 is a deterrent. They cannot add in a second deterrent. There is no initial loss to the operator as the £21 is payable to MOTO. The POPLA charge of £70 is fake as CP Plus use Ranger Service to do their POPLA cases, and they do not charge £70. This is therefore potentially fraud by the operator. As only 2% of cases got to POPLA the true average GPEOL is around £6.

3) The signage is appalling. There is no entrance signage as required by the contract with MOTO and the signage in the park is not sufficient for a site where lorries will obscure signs because of their size.

Edna_Basher

As Pranky has pointed out, CP Plus have no chance of holding your company liable for the charge because a) their failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer means that they have forfeited the right to use POFA 2012 to claim keeper liability and b) there is 0% probability that your company was the driver.

As a body corporate, your company is a legal person. It looks like CP Plus may have found this difficult to understand, given their assumption that your company made the appeal on behalf of the driver rather than in its own right (as the vehicle's hirer / keeper).

Your company will have been the named person under the hire agreement; therefore you will need to take the statement "in this case we are a company not a named person" out of your rebuttal.

doublinedancer

Thanks everyone for the fantastic response. Killer points and thanks to Pranky for the PM. Truly amazing that you guy's put so much effort into helping total strangers combat these legalised sharks.