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!
PCN CP Plus Limited - POPLA Appeal rejected
Mandyminx08
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could give me some guidance/help.
I received a PCN through the post on 22nd August for apparently failing to pay for parking on a retail park on 9th August.
The PCN was for the sum of £100 or £50 if paid within 14 days.
I recall the day I parked there an I did pay for parking on the day. I paid for one hour by cash. This is an ANPR car park so you don't have to put the ticket in your windscreen. I stayed for around 45 minutes and left.
Almost two weeks later I have this PCN through. It was dated 16th August but only receiced on 22nd August. I am not sure about you but I don't keep receipts for two weeks, I'm kicking myself now for not keeping the receipt.
That being said, I appealed the ticket stating:-
I paid for my parking at the terminal between ASDA George and Argos. I paid cash for 1 hours parking. I only received notice of this car parking charge on 22nd August 2019, almost 2 weeks since I had parked, any receipt I had has been thrown away, I do not believe it is unreasonable to throw away a receipt after a week yet alone almost 2 weeks following parking. The photographs of my vehicle going into and out of the car park does not amount to evidence of non payment of parking. You will no doubt have CCTV footage from the day and I would ask that the same be reviewed which will show that my parking was paid for. I have a young daughter and would not fail to pay a nominal charge for parking for the sake of a 48 minute stay knowing the risk of parking charges. Also, as you are a private parking facility, i.e. the land is privately owned, rather than public parking the notice you have provided is not enforceable.
My appeal was rejected. I therefore appealed to POPLA providing the same information as above.
The parking company responded with evidence of the signage etc. and provided the parking logs for the hour I stayed. I reviewed the log and noticed that at the time I arrived for a whole 4 minutes apparently nobody paid for parking. To confirm this is a busy retail park in the middle of town at peak time in half term. I explained that I believed that there must have been some fault with the machines when I parked as throughout the entirety of the log there are no other instances of minutes or even a minute going by without at least 2-5+ people paying for parking. To this end, I submitted my comments to POPLA and low and behold they have rejected my appeal for the reasons set out below:-
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the charge as it does not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence to show that she failed to pay for parking. She says that images of her vehicle entering and exiting does not amount to evidence of non-payment. The appellant says that she asked the operator to review the CCTV footage which she says clearly shows her paying for parking. She says that she does not believe the operator has reviewed this footage and if it has then she wants sight of it by way of pre-action disclosure. The appellant says that the charges are extortionate and disproportional to its losses. She says that she paid for one hour’s parking. She says that she only received the charge two weeks after she had parked, and any receipt has since been thrown away.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. In this case, the operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions clearly state: “You agree to pay a parking charge of £100 if you: Park and do not pay for the time you have stayed for”. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:24 and exiting at 13:12. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as it does not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine all of the information provided to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN. I note the appellant’s comments that the operator has not provided any evidence to show that she failed to pay for parking. She says that images of her vehicle entering and exiting does not amount to evidence of non-payment. She says that she paid for one hour’s parking. She says that she only received the charge two weeks after she had parked, and any receipt has since been thrown away. In an ANPR controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit times. The entry and exit points to this car park are managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created and sent out to the registered keeper. The operator has provided a system print out that shows no payment made against the appellant’s VRM on the date in question. I acknowledge the comments the motorist provided in relation to the operator’s case file and that she disputes the validity of the printout. Please note, that POPLA accepts all evidence from both parties in good faith unless proven otherwise. The appellant has not provided any documentation to rebut this information or to support her statement that there was a fault in the system. The appellant says that she asked the operator to review the CCTV footage which she says clearly shows her paying for parking. She says that she does not believe the operator has reviewed this footage and if it has then she wants sight of it by way of pre-action disclosure. There is no evidence to suggest that there is CCTV on this site, nor is it POPLA’s role to comment on the operator's individual process or contact the operator for this information. Any questions regarding this should be addressed directly with the operator. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The appellant says that the charges are extortionate and disproportional to its losses. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. PoFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.
I am sorry this is a long one. I am just so angry and annoyed because I know I paid for parking on the day. I'm not an idiot know the cost of parking charges are extortionate so no way on earth would I have not paid £1 parking with the risk of a fine! And despite my request for CCTV footage my request has been ignored. POPLA have completely disregarded my comments regarding the fact there appears to be a fault in the logs.
Could someone please give me any advice as to my next steps? Should i just pay the £85 to avoid incurring anymore charges?
Thank you in advance to anyone who takes their time to read this.
Mandy x
I was wondering if anyone could give me some guidance/help.
I received a PCN through the post on 22nd August for apparently failing to pay for parking on a retail park on 9th August.
The PCN was for the sum of £100 or £50 if paid within 14 days.
I recall the day I parked there an I did pay for parking on the day. I paid for one hour by cash. This is an ANPR car park so you don't have to put the ticket in your windscreen. I stayed for around 45 minutes and left.
Almost two weeks later I have this PCN through. It was dated 16th August but only receiced on 22nd August. I am not sure about you but I don't keep receipts for two weeks, I'm kicking myself now for not keeping the receipt.
That being said, I appealed the ticket stating:-
I paid for my parking at the terminal between ASDA George and Argos. I paid cash for 1 hours parking. I only received notice of this car parking charge on 22nd August 2019, almost 2 weeks since I had parked, any receipt I had has been thrown away, I do not believe it is unreasonable to throw away a receipt after a week yet alone almost 2 weeks following parking. The photographs of my vehicle going into and out of the car park does not amount to evidence of non payment of parking. You will no doubt have CCTV footage from the day and I would ask that the same be reviewed which will show that my parking was paid for. I have a young daughter and would not fail to pay a nominal charge for parking for the sake of a 48 minute stay knowing the risk of parking charges. Also, as you are a private parking facility, i.e. the land is privately owned, rather than public parking the notice you have provided is not enforceable.
My appeal was rejected. I therefore appealed to POPLA providing the same information as above.
The parking company responded with evidence of the signage etc. and provided the parking logs for the hour I stayed. I reviewed the log and noticed that at the time I arrived for a whole 4 minutes apparently nobody paid for parking. To confirm this is a busy retail park in the middle of town at peak time in half term. I explained that I believed that there must have been some fault with the machines when I parked as throughout the entirety of the log there are no other instances of minutes or even a minute going by without at least 2-5+ people paying for parking. To this end, I submitted my comments to POPLA and low and behold they have rejected my appeal for the reasons set out below:-
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the charge as it does not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence to show that she failed to pay for parking. She says that images of her vehicle entering and exiting does not amount to evidence of non-payment. The appellant says that she asked the operator to review the CCTV footage which she says clearly shows her paying for parking. She says that she does not believe the operator has reviewed this footage and if it has then she wants sight of it by way of pre-action disclosure. The appellant says that the charges are extortionate and disproportional to its losses. She says that she paid for one hour’s parking. She says that she only received the charge two weeks after she had parked, and any receipt has since been thrown away.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. In this case, the operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions clearly state: “You agree to pay a parking charge of £100 if you: Park and do not pay for the time you have stayed for”. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:24 and exiting at 13:12. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as it does not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine all of the information provided to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN. I note the appellant’s comments that the operator has not provided any evidence to show that she failed to pay for parking. She says that images of her vehicle entering and exiting does not amount to evidence of non-payment. She says that she paid for one hour’s parking. She says that she only received the charge two weeks after she had parked, and any receipt has since been thrown away. In an ANPR controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit times. The entry and exit points to this car park are managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created and sent out to the registered keeper. The operator has provided a system print out that shows no payment made against the appellant’s VRM on the date in question. I acknowledge the comments the motorist provided in relation to the operator’s case file and that she disputes the validity of the printout. Please note, that POPLA accepts all evidence from both parties in good faith unless proven otherwise. The appellant has not provided any documentation to rebut this information or to support her statement that there was a fault in the system. The appellant says that she asked the operator to review the CCTV footage which she says clearly shows her paying for parking. She says that she does not believe the operator has reviewed this footage and if it has then she wants sight of it by way of pre-action disclosure. There is no evidence to suggest that there is CCTV on this site, nor is it POPLA’s role to comment on the operator's individual process or contact the operator for this information. Any questions regarding this should be addressed directly with the operator. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that there is signage at the entrance to the car park and multiple signs are located throughout the site. I am satisfied therefore, that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The appellant says that the charges are extortionate and disproportional to its losses. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. PoFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.
I am sorry this is a long one. I am just so angry and annoyed because I know I paid for parking on the day. I'm not an idiot know the cost of parking charges are extortionate so no way on earth would I have not paid £1 parking with the risk of a fine! And despite my request for CCTV footage my request has been ignored. POPLA have completely disregarded my comments regarding the fact there appears to be a fault in the logs.
Could someone please give me any advice as to my next steps? Should i just pay the £85 to avoid incurring anymore charges?
Thank you in advance to anyone who takes their time to read this.
Mandy x
0
Comments
-
You blew the 100% win you had handed to you with that NTK. Sadly, your appeal was doomed before you even got the POPLA code.
CP Plus can't hold a keeper liable due to the wording of their NTKs, never mind the date sent. But you threw that away by being the driver so that's all gone as a point of appeal or defence.
But these cases can be won in court anyway!
Are you sure the log doesn't show a part VRN, maybe 5 - 10 mins in?The parking company responded with evidence of the signage etc. and provided the parking logs for the hour I stayed. I reviewed the log and noticed that at the time I arrived for a whole 4 minutes apparently nobody paid for parking.
Or your other car reg maybe, if you have another car you drive?
Or a payment just with one digit next to it, probably a keypad error (old system)?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 -
Sorry I mean £100 fine. I thought they had reduced it to £85. :-(
Mandy x0 -
Unfortunately, I did not read these forums before submitting my appeal as I thought it would have been reasonable for them to disclose the evidence I had requested which would have show me at the terminal paying for my parking.
I was obviously wrong.
As for the registration numbers, mine isn't on there and there isn't a similar one. Mine begins with ND10F. Here is a part of the list. The parking notice states I entered the car park at 12:24pm. They have only given from the 12:23pm so I have no details for logs prior to this time.
VRM IssueDateTime ValidFromDateTime ValidToDateTime Site PermitType
YD64P 09/08/2019 12:23 09/08/2019 12:23 09/08/2019 14:23 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
Y1J 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 13:24 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API BV53G 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 13:24 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
D7U 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 16:24 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API KX14V 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 13:24 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
LB59E 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 12:24 09/08/2019 13:24 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BC17A 09/08/2019 12:28 09/08/2019 12:28 09/08/2019 14:28 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BK08V 09/08/2019 12:28 09/08/2019 12:28 09/08/2019 15:28 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BJ55X 09/08/2019 12:29 09/08/2019 12:29 09/08/2019 16:29 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
FH66P 09/08/2019 12:29 09/08/2019 12:29 09/08/2019 13:29 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
MD55F 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 13:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
Y194R 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 13:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
L11P 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 13:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API LX15W 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 13:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
EM10P 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 13:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
DS65O 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 12:30 09/08/2019 15:30 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API DV15X 09/08/2019 12:31 09/08/2019 12:31 09/08/2019 13:31 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BU62Y 09/08/2019 12:31 09/08/2019 12:31 09/08/2019 15:31 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BV15S 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 13:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BF11Z 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 14:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
VA62B 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 13:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BD62Y 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 14:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
BV09E 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 16:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
SM54K 09/08/2019 12:33 09/08/2019 12:32 09/08/2019 13:32 Crown Wharf, WS2 8LL Cale API
Is there no way for them to disclose any other documents? CCTV or even confirmation of the amount of other parking fines they raised within that 4 minute period? Not specifying names obviously.
TIA0 -
Ask their Data Protection Officer to interrogate the data from the other machine!
AND to confirm that your payment and VRN does not appear within a half hour either side of the image showing arrival, given the fact that the systems are not synchronised for time.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 -
Do I just make that request direct to CP Plus? And will this be a subject access request in accordance with GDPR? If I'm asking for info etc. I want to get it right this time.
TIA0 -
It's unlikely that there will be any CCTV available so don't rely on that, if there was it would more likely be security from the site owner rather than the PPC.
You are sure you put your VRN into the machine, many of these useless systems will still take payment (probably by design to catch people) without entering anything?0 -
I am sure I did. I haven't parked there since (out of principle) so am not sure what happens if you dont enter reg i.e. whether it allows you to proceed. But I am 100% sure I did insert my reg. I even remember the exact spot where I parked.
I just really don't know what to do next whether to wait for them to issue Court proceedings or to try and negotiate a lower charge to get the matter resolved or pay the full amount on a without prejudice basis and then issue a claim myself to try and recover it? But it seems since POPLA rejected any claim or defence to proceedings may be pointless.
I am just so angry because I have paid in accordance with their terms and they are going to extort more money from me. And £100 is a lot of money to me.0 -
Negotiating a lower charge won't happen , they will refuse plus take it as an admission of guilt, so I would not even try it
They cannot extort money from you
The only time you would owe money is if you lost in court and a judge set a figure owed as the CCJ , let's say £175
If that happens , pay up , in full , within one month to expunge the CCJ , job done
It's a dispute over money , nothing more , with a judge acting as referee
Many charges lost at popla have been won in court0 -
I don't want to set myself up for failure and my worry is that the Court will rule in favour of the Claimant based on the appeal decision of POPLA and I would rather avoid having to pay another £75 on top.0
-
We know , we know the lesser of 2 evils arguments , it's what scammers thrive on
Personally I would take my chances with a judge
Nobody here would tell you or encourage you to pay a penny , not unless a judge says so
Sometimes the best route isn't the easiest route , but paying scammers is not what MSE is about0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards