CP Plus PCN/NTK

patient_dream

As Coupon says, it sounds like ghost ticketing which would be fraud.
We will have to monitor CP Plus and Group Nexus and the other companies

The other point on the sign, they threaten debt collectors and a further charge but do not say how much.  That is an unfair contract plus government has banned these add-on charges

Stick with us and if it goes further, I think a spanking for CP Plus will be in order

jsmrtn

Here is my initial draft of the POPLA letter. I'm sure more can be put in regards to the debt collector threat that you mention @patient_dream, do you have any examples / legislation that I would be able to quote? I'm not sure if there are more 'generic' points I could argue beyond the 3 I have included.

I'm not sure if I've been too strong on page 6 ref suggesting this is a ghost ticketing situation, unsure as to how that sort of thing sits with POPLA.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aiT2w2Gpn7dmEAuh31A0a6CS_ytYJW39/view

Thanks both

1505grandad

Have not read past first para yet but you should be using/quoting BPA CoP Version 8 dated January 2020 - different wording to that which you have quoted. 

jsmrtn

Thank you @1505grandad. I've updated using the latest CoP references, and also audited the rest of the document to ensure the correct references are utilised.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aiT2w2Gpn7dmEAuh31A0a6CS_ytYJW39/view?usp=sharing

1505grandad

"3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge"

Unfortunately as the NtK is PoFA compliant (as confirmed by C-m in a previous post) it does not matter if the driver is not known  -  the RK will be liable under PoFA:-

"Yes, that's their POFA version that they use after a windscreen PCN."


"1. The lack of sufficient signage throughout the site in question (non-compliance with BPA

Code of Practice 18.3)  -  signs are para 19 in latest BPA CoP

Coupon-mad

Remove the rubbishy intro (we know it's not your words, but it's written in awful grammar and it is unnecessary to tell POPLA all that gubbins).

Remove the whole point about not proving who was driving.

You cannot say the BPA CoP allows 15 minutes; it certainly doesn't, so remove that quote and suggestion. You don't add the two periods together. It only allows a minimum of 5.

I like your photos and explanation of what the driver had to do after driving past the camera, and why it all took a few minutes before the transaction completed at 10.22.

But:

Don't put 'the driver has then purchased'.

That sounds like the driver saw their car was being ticketed and THEN went to the machine to quickly pay and display. Re-word that; in fact the driver was already in the process of paying!

I didn't have time to read every word. Did you use Kelvin Reynold's BPA article words and link to it, where he says if a ticket is issued while a person is paying, then not enough consideration period has been allowed.

Make more of the fact that the 'penalty' sum is positively buried in small print on that sign.  Go read POPLA DECISIONS from April/May and you will see cases where POPLA agree with that argument.  What I recommend is that you use POPLA's own template paragraph about that and the Beavis case, so the assessor recognises it and agrees!

jsmrtn

Thanks both. Updated version at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aiT2w2Gpn7dmEAuh31A0a6CS_ytYJW39/view?usp=sharing

Changes made for brevity:

• Dropped point 3 ref PoFA compliance
• Removed intro 
• Updated point 1 to suggest minimum of 5 minutes has not been adhered to, quoted Kelvin Reynolds article from the BPA website to further support case that driver was purchasing ticket at the time of the PCN being served. Made sure to note the driver was already paying and not purchasing after the fact.
• Updated point 2 on signage to be from a winning POPLA case in April (copied in from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79118644/#Comment_79118644 and adjusted for my purposes), hopefully this is what you means by the template paragraph + Beavis case @Coupon-mad

Appreciate your help, hopeful this is an open + shut case.

jsmrtn

Made some final tweaks just for general readability and grammar, and correctness of some figures and times.

Hopefully doesn’t need any more updates and can send this on tomorrow.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0qsDWmqHAYQdejLywurad9f99-0ArV1/view?usp=drivesdk

TIA

Coupon-mad

There's a typo: 'Grade' period near the start.

And where you talk about ghost ticketing, add that the so-called evidence picture shows a dishevelled, crushed yellow envelope with a completely folded and unidentifiable piece of paper inside.  This is typically seen in 'ghost ticketing' cases where a rogue ticketer removes and re-uses the same dummy ticket from car to car, to avoid it (and them) being seen.  This then ensures that the first notice is a NTK a month later with no discount. That way, a performance-paid ticketer is likely to earn double the amount, if duped victims or keepers just pay.  The operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with a statement from this ticketer to explain what they did, why the PCN was removed and the lack of grace period.

A freshly placed newly-affixed PCN envelope given in good weather like this (as POPLA will have seen multiple times) looks pristine and flat in photos.  This one is a mess and wasn't there a minute later.

jsmrtn

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I've updated the ghost ticketing paragraph to read as below.

It is further my impression that the attendant has engaged in the unscrupulous tactic of ghost ticketing. Evidence supplied by the operator shows two pictures (Figure 4, Figure 5), with the first showing an un-ticketed car at the time of 10:19:24 and a ticketed car at the time of 10:20:45. As evidenced in Figure 6, the driver was already in the process of purchasing a ticket, which completes at 10:22 (a maximum of 135 seconds), with there being no PCN attached to the car when they returned to the vehicle. Furthermore, the picture that has been deemed evidence shows a dishevelled, crushed envelope with a folded and otherwise unidentifiable piece of paper, suggesting that the ticketer has previously re-used the same ticket from a previous car, and then removed it to avoid being seen. This ensures that the registered keeper’s first notification of the notice is via the notice to keeper a month later, meaning any performance-paid ticketers will earn more, as duped victims are not given the opportunity to pay any discounted charge. A freshly placed, newly fixed PCN envelope given in good weather should be pristine and flat and should not be missing so soon after being placed. I put the operator to strict proof on the contrary with a statement from the ticketer that explains what they did, why the PCN was removed, and why they have not given a suitable grace period.