CP Plus response, Pre POPLA decision - Advice needed please!

Coupon-mad

You might get lucky so see it through.

CP Plus use DCB Legal, who discontinue defended court claims so it will come to an end next year if POPLA doesn't work this year.

Plan_Freeze

Coupon-mad said:

You might get lucky so see it through.

CP Plus use DCB Legal, who discontinue defended court claims so it will come to an end next year if POPLA doesn't work this year.

I just submitted my response now, thanks for the help.

Will keep you posted.. fingers crossed!

Gr1pr

Judges have more leeway and also will consider the facts in the case, especially any legal aspects, Popla decisions are usually about narrow parameters and no mitigating factors 

This is especially true since the Ombudsman service was awarded the contract, it was much fairer when London Councils ran it , more impartial 

The claimant would have to prove their claim, to the judge 

Plus not all court claims reach a hearing, many are discontinued 

Things may be different once the whole shebang is regulated sometime next year 

Plan_Freeze

Hi,

As @Coupon-mad expected, POPLA have rejected my appeal and CP Plus waited for 28 days then sent me a post to request the increased charge of £170 to be paid within 14 days, which I haven't paid, and won't do.

Obviously they have that if not paid, the case will be escalated and/or being referred to debt collection.   

How can debt collection happen before a hearing has taken place?! Could you please advise on the next steps?   

For your reference, I have summarised the length POPLA response using Gemini, let me know if you prefer to read the full version.

--------

Summary of Assessor's Rationale:

POPLA acts as an impartial, single-stage appeal service, determining if a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly based on the evidence and the car park's terms and conditions.

In this case, the vehicle stayed for 1 hour and 10 minutes, exceeding the clearly signposted 45-minute initial free period by 25 minutes. No payment was recorded for the additional time parked. The signage, which POPLA found compliant with the relevant British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Sections 19.1 & 19.3), clearly stated the free period, the requirement to pay for longer stays, how to pay, and the £100 charge for non-compliance. It is the driver's responsibility to seek out and understand these terms upon entering the car park.

The appellant raised several points, which the assessor addressed:

1. Operator Customer Service: Complaints about the operator's handling of the initial appeal are outside POPLA's remit.
2. Mitigating Circumstances (Illness): While acknowledged, POPLA confirmed the operator had already considered this in the initial appeal and decided to proceed with the charge. POPLA doesn't override the operator's discretion on this unless the circumstances weren't reviewed, which they were.
3. Incorrect Code of Practice: The appellant cited a Code not yet in force at the time of the parking event (27 Aug 2024 vs. 1 Oct 2024). The applicable BPA Code requirements for signage were met.
4. Consideration/Grace Periods: The assessor clarified that the BPA Code's consideration (5 mins) and grace periods (10 mins) are for deciding to park and leaving after parking, respectively (Sections 13.1, 13.3, 13.6). They do not extend the free parking allowance. The overstay was 25 minutes beyond the free period.
5. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL): Citing the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, the assessor stated the test is now about "legitimate interest" and proportionality, rather than purely GPEOL. The charge was found to be prominent on signs and proportionate.
6. Contract Frustration (Illness): This was rejected as the appellant's illness did not make payment impossible, evidenced by their ability to drive the vehicle out. Payment methods were available.

The core issue remains that the driver stayed longer than the free period without making the required payment, thus breaching the clearly advertised terms and conditions.

Conclusion - Key Points:

• POPLA's role is to assess if the PCN was issued correctly according to site terms and evidence.
• The vehicle overstayed the 45-minute free parking period by 25 minutes.
• No payment was made for the duration exceeding the free period.
• Site signage clearly communicated the terms, payment requirements, and consequences of non-compliance, meeting BPA Code standards.
• Appellant's arguments regarding operator service, mitigating circumstances (illness), grace periods, GPEOL (addressed via Beavis case precedent), and contract frustration were considered but did not invalidate the PCN.
• The PCN was deemed correctly issued as the terms and conditions were breached by failing to pay.
• The appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Debt letters are just letters. 

See the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread. Don't show us the letters...please no!