Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus

RobinofLoxley

Pinklady0805 wrote: »

2 girls have just had the LBCC Letters for court, they will owe about £18,000 if they lose.

Are these genuine LBC's from proper solicitors? Because debt collectors like DRP are known to use the trick of using notepaper headed with the name and logo of a firm of solicitors, pretending to have been sent by the solicitors. If the letter still asks you to send payment to the debt collectors it has come from them and not the solicitors, so it can be ignored. A real LBC or LBA from real solicitors should be acted upon.

By the way CP Plus hardly ever take motorists to court. In 2016 they issued 166,000 tickets and didn't go to court once. In the first 6 months of this year they issued 87,000 tickets and have taken people to court twice.
Though with the amount of money involved here they might be tempted despite the massive amount of bad publicity that they will bring on themselves and Meadowhall in the media.

Pinklady0805

Hi, yes they are separated from the others, I'm still receiving them daily through post so I will fight all that have gone over the 60 days with the blue temple letter off newbies threat then shall I?

Pinklady0805

Hi thanks for your reply,

I'm unable to post any pic up for you, it says it's because I'm a newbie.

All the letters are the same and read as follows

Cp plus letter

Date of sending of this notice 13/07/2017
PCN date of issue 27/05/2017
Reason for issue parked in a restricted area

My name and address

Notice to keeper

Parking charge notice £120

We are writing on behalf of the creditor in relation to an unpaid parking charge. We have obtained your details from the DVLA under a "reasonable cause" request as you were the registered keeper of the vehicle specified at the time of the parking incident shown. A parking charge has been issued be the vehicle was parked in a manner where the driver attracted a parking charge as brought to the drivers attention via signage and agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked in private land managed by our client CP PLUS ltd ( the creditor) .

A notice to driver, providing details of the incident, was issued via a parking charge notice (PNC) that was affixed to the vehicle screen. The driver was required to pay the charge within 28 days of issue. The opportunity at the reduced rate has now passed and the full amount is now due by the driver.

As the charge as not yet been paid in full and we do not hold a record of the drivers name and address, we are writing to you as the keeper of the vehicle. As such we now invite you to make payment of the parking charge shown or if you were not he driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident to notify us in writing, acting on behalf of CP Plus ltd, of the name and current serviceable address of the driver. Please also pass this notice to him/her without delay.

If this parking charge remains unpaid after a period of 28 days of this notice and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we will have the right to recover the charge from you as the keeper of the vehicle. At this stage we may pass the case to a debt recovery company where further cost may be added.

Pinklady0805

Hi many thanks for your reply,
the court letters did look like photo copies, we rang the court and they confirmed the case number, so we believed them to be genuine.

Pinklady0805

Hi, I've had another go at putting a POPLA Appeal together, using template letters from the newbies thread.
Can you advise me on this again please.
Many thanks in advance!

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,


I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from CP Plus On the following points

1. The vehicle was not parked in a restricted area
2 Failure to invoke Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA). The operator as not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
3. No evidence of landowner authority.
4. Poor visibility of signage


1. The vehicle was not parked in an restricted area at the time of it been issued the PCN.
The vehicle was parked correctly within the lines of the parking bay provided for free with no maximum stay limit, by the shopping centre for customer parking. I have no evidence of this as CPPlus never issued any photo evidence with the NTK Letter.

2. (1)CP Plus has not fulfilled the second condition for keeper liability as defined in schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to purse any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is not discretion on this matter. If schedular 4 mandatory documents are not served correctly or on time then keeper liability simply does not apply.
In order to pursue Keeper Liability under the POFA,
CP Plus must have met the strict conditions in the Act. They have failed to fulfil the requirements of the “Notice to Keeper” (‘NtK’) as per paragraph 8 section 7

SCHEDULE 4 Recovery of unpaid parking charges

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

The wording in the protection of freedom Act is as follows:
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keep of vehicle
4(1) the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking chargers from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) the right under this paragraph applies only if the conditions specified in paragraph’s 8* – are met.
Paragraph 8 (7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10
This shows the operator has not followed strict requirements set out in POFA 2012 but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.
Clearly I can not be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory parking charge documents were not properly given.
2(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper liability’ to reply upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the assessor know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the constant of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
When a charge is aimed only at the driver then, of course, no other party can be held to pay. I am the appellant throughout ( as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding how was driving and no evidence has been produced, it has been held on POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper if the operator has not followed strict POFA 2012 rules
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with schedule 4. This apply regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact still remain I am only the keeper and ONLY schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rest with the operator, because they can not use the POFA in this case to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
Further more, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA lead adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
‘There appears to be continuing misunderstandings about schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking chargers from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the register keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike , for example a Notice of intended prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police. Pursuant to section 172 of the road traffic act 1998, a keeper sent a schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If POFA 2012 schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

There for no lawful exists to pursue unpaid parking chargers from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer liability for the charge using the protection of freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against Parkingeye in September 2016 where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
“I note the operator is advises that it is not an attempt to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate the the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. According I must allow this appeal. “

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
meras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.


4. Signage

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and entrances.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did
not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Signage does not create a contract

In contract law there are three elements a) an offer b) acceptance c) consideration. If one of these is not present, then logically there is no contract. In the case where the signage is written in such a way that it forbids you from parking then logically this is no contract. The claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer which isn't an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

I need to add pictures of signs but can't upload here.

Any better??

RobinofLoxley

Pinklady0805 wrote: »

Hi thanks for your reply,

I'm unable to post any pic up for you, it says it's because I'm a newbie.

All the letters are the same and read as follows

Cp plus letter

Date of sending of this notice 13/07/2017
PCN date of issue 27/05/2017
Reason for issue parked in a restricted area

My name and address

Notice to keeper

Parking charge notice £120

We are writing on behalf of the creditor in relation to an unpaid parking charge. We have obtained your details from the DVLA under a "reasonable cause" request as you were the registered keeper of the vehicle specified at the time of the parking incident shown. A parking charge has been issued be the vehicle was parked in a manner where the driver attracted a parking charge as brought to the drivers attention via signage and agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked in private land managed by our client CP PLUS ltd ( the creditor) .

A notice to driver, providing details of the incident, was issued via a parking charge notice (PNC) that was affixed to the vehicle screen. The driver was required to pay the charge within 28 days of issue. The opportunity at the reduced rate has now passed and the full amount is now due by the driver.

As the charge as not yet been paid in full and we do not hold a record of the drivers name and address, we are writing to you as the keeper of the vehicle. As such we now invite you to make payment of the parking charge shown or if you were not he driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident to notify us in writing, acting on behalf of CP Plus ltd, of the name and current serviceable address of the driver. Please also pass this notice to him/her without delay.

If this parking charge remains unpaid after a period of 28 days of this notice and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we will have the right to recover the charge from you as the keeper of the vehicle. At this stage we may pass the case to a debt recovery company where further cost may be added.

Who is this letter from? you say it's a CP Plus letter yet it says they are acting on behalf of the creditor CP Plus. Is this a debt collectors letter or a NTK from CP Plus?

If you want to post photos on here you can type the URL but substitute the letters 't' in http with an x, so it would read 'hxxp'. Then a regular poster can convert it into the correct URL.

RobinofLoxley

Pinklady0805 wrote: »

Hi thanks for your reply,

I was issued a window screen ticket. First off they where hand written then they went to machine print out. I then received the notice to keep letter weeks later.

This is the email I got after I had appealed to CPPlus ....
Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.

My findings

The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question, a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

Please be aware that this vehicle was parked within a restricted area.

What you need to do now

You now have three options to choose from:

1) Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of £120.00 by 22/08/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to https://www.parkingcsl.co.uk or phone 0208 528 4122. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.

2) Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online at https://www.popla.co.uk (verification code: ). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful you will be only able to settle the PCN at the full amount of £120.00.

3) If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.

More Information

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

Payment Methods

Online Payment: https://www.parkingcsl.co.uk

Telephone Payment: 0208 528 4122

Bank Transfer: Quote your reference number to Parking Collection Services, Royal Bank Of Scotland, Sort Code 16-00-01, Account Number 20973851

Cheques/Postal Orders: Should be posted to the address below, made payable to Parking Collection Services. Please write your reference number on the back.

Kind Regards

What was the date of this letter in which CP Plus rejected your appeal and provided a verification number for POPLA. You will have about 30 days from that date to submit your appeal to POPLA.

Pinklady0805

Hi the letter is headed with CP Plus, it says Notice to keeper.
Dated 13/07/2017
I appealed to this letter on 21/07/17 using the blue template letter off the newbies thread.
Cpp emailed back 25/07/17 refusing my appeal but giving me POPLA code

Pinklady0805

Top of the letter the email is https://www.parkingcsl.co.uk
If this helps. I'll try and upload photos now

Pinklady0805

[IMG]hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/2dspthx.jpg[/IMG]

Let me know if this works