Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus

waamo

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

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.

No problem, better twice than not at all.

RobinofLoxley

DoaM wrote: »

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.

No worries

If they don't know who the driver is and they aren't relying on POFA to transfer the liability to the keeper that must be a sure fire fail at POPLA for CP Plus.

RobinofLoxley

PKandF wrote: »

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

Good luck. Hopefully CP Plus are blitzed with loads of winning POPLA appeals.

PKandF

Sorry to post in here again guys but I couldn't help noticing something.
The NTK posted by the OP: i.cubeupload.com/qSAwq2.jpg
A PCS NTK I found in another thread: imgur.com/XOIfqdd

These are worded exactly the same it appears. Those in this thread have said that the CP Plus NTK does not adhere to POFA 2012, but those in the PCS thread think that that one does.

I'm very new to this, so apologies if I've missed something very obvious.

EDIT: Noticed a slight difference in the final paragraph, is this what makes the CP Plus NTK non compliant?

Ryandavis1959

PKandF wrote: »

Sorry to post in here again guys but I couldn't help noticing something.
The NTK posted by the OP: i.cubeupload.com/qSAwq2.jpg
A PCS NTK I found in another thread: imgur.com/XOIfqdd

These are worded exactly the same it appears. Those in this thread have said that the CP Plus NTK does not adhere to POFA 2012, but those in the PCS thread think that that one does.

I'm very new to this, so apologies if I've missed something very obvious.

EDIT: Noticed a slight difference in the final paragraph, is this what makes the CP Plus NTK non compliant?

edit - sorry wrong thread.

RobinofLoxley

PKandF wrote: »

Sorry to post in here again guys but I couldn't help noticing something.
The NTK posted by the OP: i.cubeupload.com/qSAwq2.jpg
A PCS NTK I found in another thread: imgur.com/XOIfqdd

These are worded exactly the same it appears. Those in this thread have said that the CP Plus NTK does not adhere to POFA 2012, but those in the PCS thread think that that one does.

I'm very new to this, so apologies if I've missed something very obvious.

EDIT: Noticed a slight difference in the final paragraph, is this what makes the CP Plus NTK non compliant?

Both NTK's are issued by Parking Collection Services AKA Debt Recovery Plus.
For the Meadowhall one their client/ the creditor/parking company is CP Plus. In the case of the other one it is Secure a Space.

In the Secure a Space one, the wording :

"If we do not receive the name and address of the driver within 28 days beginning on the day after this notice is given..."

Is compliant with POFA paragraph 9 (2)(f). Though there is no mention of them using POFA.

Whereas in the CP Plus (Meadowhall) one the wording :

"If this parking charge remains unpaid after a period of 28 days of this notice..."

Is non compliant with POFA. It doesn't even make sense.

PKandF

Thanks ROBINOFLOXLEY! I understand this now. It just goes to show how much these things rely on the smallest of details.

Pinklady0805

So sorry I've not been getting notifications for any of your replys!!!! Just reading now and catching up

Pinklady0805

hxxp://i.cubeupload.com/tPcHeV.jpg

Window screen ticket

Pinklady0805

Pic of the sign
hxxp://i.cubeupload.com/D4dmxc.jpg