Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus

RobinofLoxley

Live link of image of claim form. http://i.cubeupload.com/uGnm3o.png


Do you know what the ladies that have received the court claim have done about them. Have they responded by acknowledging the claim? This should have been done within 19 days of the issue date of the claim. In the case of the one in the photo, that would be by the 29th July.

RobinofLoxley

Yes indeed

The OP for that claim should be posting on MSE and Pepipoo as well as trying to garner support from any "group " set up. I think any group could be disadvantaged to some extent if the court decides to hear the cases in a similar style to the Indigo cases.

Meadow Hall used to have PCM infesting their car parks.

CP Plus do not rely on the provisions of POFA for keeper liability.

Originally posted by neveradullmoment

The wording on the NTK states :

"If this parking charge remains unpaid after a period of 28 days of this notice and we don't know both the name and current address of the driver, we will have the right to recover the charge from you as keeper of the vehicle."

Even though they don't specifically refer to POFA, surely the only way they can transfer the liability of the parking charge from the driver to the keeper is by utilising POFA 2012, is that not right?

DoaM

Yes, but ... POFA is explicit about what wording needs to be included, and the CP Plus NTK is nowhere near compliant with POFA requirements.

RobinofLoxley

DoaM wrote: »

Yes, but ... POFA is explicit about what wording needs to be included, and the CP Plus NTK is nowhere near compliant with POFA requirements.

I agree the NTK fails POFA but CP Plus don't mention POFA anywhere, so how can they expect to make the keeper liable for the charge?

It would be interesting to see a copy of the NTD because I would be surprised if that complies with POFA too.

Could the OP post and image of the NTD/Windscreen ticket please.

PKandF

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

I agree the NTK fails POFA but CP Plus don't mention POFA anywhere, so how can they expect to make the keeper liable for the charge?

It would be interesting to see a copy of the NTD because I would be surprised if that complies with POFA too.

Could the OP post and image of the NTD/Windscreen ticket please.

Front: i.cubeupload.com/RQFdIC.jpg (Apologies, I can't seem to post a direct image).
Overleaf: i.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg

I'm certain that the OP's notice to driver would look exactly the same as the one above, as it would appear to be under similar circumstances at the same location.

Not trying to hijack this at all by the way! I just thought it may help.

waamo

Here you go links converted

https://u.cubeupload.com/RQFdIC.jpg

https://u.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg

Welcome to the whacky world of private parking where companies make up the rules as they go along.

RobinofLoxley

PKandF wrote: »

Front: i.cubeupload.com/RQFdIC.jpg (Apologies, I can't seem to post a direct image).
Overleaf: i.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg

I'm certain that the OP's notice to driver would look exactly the same as the one above, as it would appear to be under similar circumstances at the same location.

Not trying to hijack this at all by the way! I just thought it may help.

Yes thank you they may be helpful.

Links for the NTD images

http://i.cubeupload.com/RQFdIC.jpg
http://i.cubeupload.com/N4QEry.jpg

EDIT: Sorry Waamo, you got there before me.

PKandF

Thank-you kindly! I have my own issues with Meadowhall and this lot, soon to be appealed hopefully!

DoaM

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

I agree the NTK fails POFA but CP Plus don't mention POFA anywhere, so how can they expect to make the keeper liable for the charge?

I guess I misread what you posted ... I thought you were inferring that as they had some wording about transferring to keeper therefore it must be POFA-compliant.

RobinofLoxley

waamo wrote: »

Welcome to the whacky world of private parking where companies make up the rules as they go along.

You're not wrong there! Unbelievable they are taking people to court for £ thousands based on this nonsense.