Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Jan 18, 1:10 AM
    • 29Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to PAOLA and how?
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:10 AM
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to PAOLA and how? 5th Jan 18 at 1:10 AM
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to POPLA and how if yes? Can anyone help PLEASE?

    The driver parked at Giltbrook retail centre at Nottingham. Shopped at Ikea. Car park is free. The car park was full, there is a shed situated across 4 parking bays, parked just behind it. It didn't cause any obstruction to anyone at all. There was no signage nowhere on the site or entrance. The driver took lots of pictures as a prove and attached it to the email when the keeper appealed to cp plus but they seem to ignore the fact that there is no signage.

    This is my appeal:
    Re: PCN No. CPxxxxx
    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
    I believe that the car park in question has no signage to explain what the relevant parking terms and restrictions are as established in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis.

    This means no contract can be formed with the landowner. Please see attached evidence, I have gathered as a proof. The pictures clearly shows there is no signage on the entrance or anywhere at all to be seen on the side of the car park that the car was parked.

    As there are no signs on the car park in question, the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, is failed.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than 250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Their answer:

    Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
    I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.
    My findings
    The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question, a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

    I attach photographic evidence taken at the time of the parking contravention.

    The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

    The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.
    You have objected to our processing of your data under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. However, you have no right to object to our doing so if:
    you have consented to the processing;
    the processing is necessary:
    in relation to a contract that the individual has entered into; or
    because the individual has asked for something to be done so they can enter into a contract;
    the processing is necessary because of a legal obligation that applies to you (other than a contractual obligation); or
    the processing is necessary to protect the individual!!!8217;s !!!8220;vital interests!!!8221;.
    the processing does not cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress.
    Your details were obtained from our client as the liable party in this case.
    We believe that our holding of your details on the file is correct due to the validity of the parking charge and we do not believe that our processing of your data will cause you unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. Therefore, we will not remove your details from our system.
    What you need to do now
    You now have three options to choose from:
    1) Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of 120.00 by 24/01/2018. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to xxx or phone xxx. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.
    2) Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online at xxx (verification code: xxxxxxxxxx). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.
    3) If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.
    More Information
    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-01-2018 at 10:58 PM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 12:43 AM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Last month I told you to include the extra words, and gave you them:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73663884#post73663884

    After point #3, add the usual template that the appellant has not been shown to the the individual liable (see post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, as it is there).

    And because there is a new (I hope not rogue, just clueless) Assessor at POPLA now who clearly has not been trained properly, in case you get them, I would add this at the end:

    Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given within 56 days. POPLA Assessor, if you think that looking at the Notice to Driver instead, and comparing that to the POFA is acceptable (as happened in a very wrong 'Gemini Parking' POPLA decision prior to Christmas that is in the public domain and needs addressing as a terrible POPLA error and woeful lack of POFA training) then you are not correct, must NOT take that step and must refer this case first, to your Lead Adjudicator, because POPLA is not entitled under any rule of law to make a finding against a registered keeper in a case without a valid Notice to Keeper. This will continue to be stated in appeals until all POPLA Assessors get this simple matter right.
    And waamo added, surprised that you had not said a word about 'POFA/no keeper liability':

    CP Plus rarely send POFA compliant paperwork. Unless I'm missing it you could do with a paragraph challanging POFA compliance.
    So, what paragraphs did you add about no keeper liability, and the words I showed you and the template wording mentioned in the link I gave you a month ago 'the individual has not been shown to be the individual liable'?

    Hoping you have not come this far without mentioning the POFA/keeper liability as an appeal point at all, despite being shown the words, given a link and reminded by waamo.

    Please show us what your final draft appeal said about the POFA?

    Did you ever get sent a NTK?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-02-2018 at 12:45 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hockey27
    • By Hockey27 5th Feb 18, 8:09 AM
    • 58 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Hockey27
    In picture 3 in post 20

    Near the bottom where it says to the effect "As the charge was not paid the debt was transferred to our debt recovery agent"

    Is that not clear admission of breaching Data protection?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 5th Feb 18, 8:56 AM
    • 35,105 Posts
    • 19,179 Thanks
    Quentin
    If that photo showing a ford not parked properly relates to this thread then you need to edit/remove it.

    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you.

    That photo has the exact model and reg number of the ford
    • waamo
    • By waamo 5th Feb 18, 9:05 AM
    • 2,988 Posts
    • 3,850 Thanks
    waamo
    An undated contract is useless. Point out to POPLA that the contract is not valid due to being undated.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 1:56 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In picture 3 in post 20

    Near the bottom where it says to the effect "As the charge was not paid the debt was transferred to our debt recovery agent"

    Is that not clear admission of breaching Data protection?
    Originally posted by Hockey27
    No, they are allowed to use debt recovery letters.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 7:42 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Hi everyone,
    First to say, I was so silly and did not notice page 2 on my own thread, and I thought no-one had replied to it. I can't login on my laptop so doing it through my phone and this is why I mess up.
    Answering to your questions:
    Windscreen PCN 8 Oct.
    NTK 15 Nov.
    First appeal 11 Dec.
    Their rejection 27 Dec.
    PoPLA appeal 23 Jan.
    Their evidence package 30 Jan.
    So they did sent NTK 38 days after the event and I did not appeal to them before that.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 8:03 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    O
    Last month I told you to include the extra words, and gave you them:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73663884#post73663884



    And waamo added, surprised that you had not said a word about 'POFA/no keeper liability':


    So, what paragraphs did you add about no keeper liability, and the words I showed you and the template wording mentioned in the link I gave you a month ago 'the individual has not been shown to be the individual liable'?

    Hoping you have not come this far without mentioning the POFA/keeper liability as an appeal point at all, despite being shown the words, given a link and reminded by waamo.

    Please show us what your final draft appeal said about the POFA?

    Did you ever get sent a NTK?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I regret to admit I did not add any paragraph about POFA/no keeper liability as I was not sure how can I show where it fails to comply with the POFA. My main point was the signage that is not enough and not adequate in this car park. I will copy and paste bellow what I sent to PoPLA.

    Can I still add it to the comments or is it too late? I am going to say about the contract page they sent, that is unless plus the signage again. The pictures of the signage they provided are taken from "miles" away. They show that picture like the t&c where so close, in fact this pole is situated on the carpark across the road. They forgot to mention there is a road in between and that those t&c are facing the other way.
    Just take a look a the pictures, first one is their, second took by the driver.
    Forgive me for not listening to your instructions, I am a busy mum of 3 year old, I am also foreign and not so easy for me to understand all regulations and all I am reading from you. I just had to learn everything from this forum and I do my best to get it cancelled as I know I am 100% right there is no signage on this site and this is my main point.


    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/tXNqc6.jpg

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/924/SM5fpS.jpg
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-02-2018 at 8:23 PM.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 8:38 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    This is an interesting one. In BPA says the sign for T&C should be at least 450mm x450mm and this one isn't.

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/922/xbcHqC.png
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-02-2018 at 9:09 PM.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 8:40 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    POPLA Ref

    CP Plus Parking PCN no
    A notice to keeper was issued on xth October 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of..xxxxx for an alleged contravention of !!!8216;NOT PARKED IN
    DESIGNED PARKING SPACE!!!8217;!!!8217; at Giltbrook Shopping Park, Nottingham. I am writing to you as the
    registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following
    reasons:
    1) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces (ref. POPLA
    case Rochelle Merritt 5960956830).
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority.
    1) The signs in this car park are not prominent - not placed at the entrance to the site, and there are not
    enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site, not clear or legible from all parking spaces
    and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not
    have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion
    and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique
    interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for
    this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park
    and those facts only:
    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN
    In the Beavis case, the 85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour
    background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering'
    signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking
    %2Bsign_001.jpg
    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent
    signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific
    car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are
    unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being
    crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters
    too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the
    legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the
    car.
    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA
    Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which
    is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are
    unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large
    lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a
    legible sign, nor parked near one.
    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor
    Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated
    signs were far larger, was inadequate:
    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the
    terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs
    would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal
    but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more
    than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the
    wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you
    want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store,
    your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine.
    However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them,
    design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''
    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-
    Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters
    always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing
    distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or
    pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that
    letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to
    the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and
    perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of
    drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red
    letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as
    was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule'
    and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information
    into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a
    lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.
    Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is
    transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and
    intelligible language and it is legible.
    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive
    case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not
    seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.
    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the
    operator's case:
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is
    not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have
    'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver
    in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a
    clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly
    marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been
    seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.
    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken
    in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of
    the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a
    driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot
    be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage
    terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    The alleged contravention, according to CP Plus, is in 'Not parked at designed parking space and the
    signage on site is sufficient'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with
    road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be
    seen by a driver and certainly are not placed at the entrance to the site of the car park between
    Dacatlon and Ikea stores at Giltbrook Shopping Park, where the car was parked. The signage is
    missing all over the whole of this area. The driver was not given the chance to be aware of the risk
    involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle and therefore the signage do not comply with the
    BPA code of practice.
    As per section 4 of the BPA code of practice 'Signs must show, in plain and intelligible language, all the
    terms on which an operator may wish to rely. Signs must be placed at the entrance to the site, and
    there must be enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site so that drivers are given the
    chance to be aware of the risk involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.'
    CP Plus are required to show evidence to the contrary.
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the
    BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an
    unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User
    Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident'
    exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define
    what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact
    have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to
    merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make
    contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own
    name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents
    not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases
    be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of
    the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods
    (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic
    information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not
    forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a
    charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be
    assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have
    been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof
    of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure
    that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action
    being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
    defined
    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
    restrictions on hours of operation
    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking
    control and enforcement
    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement,
    I strongly believe that CP Plus are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    This is exactly what I've sent supporting with many pictures were there is no signage on whole the area where was parked.
    For comments, can I send PoPla PDF to show more pictures with my comments as a contrary to their?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 8:55 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would not show the picture with the ruler, because in fact it shows readable wording!

    Your other picture it much better, and their picture of the car park doesn't show what the signs say, in situ.

    Please show us the Notice to Keeper.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 9:18 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    I would not show the picture with the ruler, because in fact it shows readable wording!
    Ok I get that, thank you.

    Your other picture it much better, and their picture of the car park doesn't show what the signs say, in situ.
    Exactly and in fact this one of them is a disclaimer notice rather than t&c. I have added what is on the board.
    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/922/bbXfPI.jpg
    The nearest sign is actually across the road 0,1 miles. Is it good to show this picture?
    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/DtBhl0.jpg
    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/DtBhl0.jpg
    Car was parked behind red container
    Please show us the Notice Keeper.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I will just need to remove the details....
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-02-2018 at 9:21 PM.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 9:46 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Please show us the Notice to Keeper.[/QUOTE]

    Here it is

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/924/aMHoHe.jpg
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 9:48 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's not the NTK, that's the next letter after it. You can tell that from the first words.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Please show us the Notice to Keeper.
    Originally posted by Madzamdzasz
    NTK

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/JPomYM.jpg

    Notice of liability. They have sent me this few days after my email with first appeal
    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/924/aMHoHe.jpg[/QUOTE]
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 9:54 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Please show us the Notice to Keeper.
    Originally posted by Madzamdzasz
    Here it is

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/924/aMHoHe.jpg[/QUOTE]
    That's not the NTK, that's the next letter after it. You can tell that from the first words.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    That's right I forgot they sent me that second one too.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 9:56 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It fails to ''repeat the information in the Notice to Driver'' (as required in the POFA; go and find those words in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4!) and says wrongly, that the outstanding amount is 120. It is not, because 120 was not stated on any contractual signs and nor was the PCN for the sum of 120, a figure which exceeds the ceiling set in the BPA CoP.

    And the NTK strangely identifies the creditor as their 'client' (not CP Plus!). Hahaha!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 10:09 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    It fails to ''repeat the information in the Notice to Driver'' (as required in the POFA; go and find those words in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4!) and says wrongly, that the outstanding amount is 120. It is not, because 120 was not stated on any contractual signs and nor was the PCN for the sum of 120, a figure which exceeds the ceiling set in the BPA CoP.

    And the NTK strangely identifies the creditor as their 'client' (not CP Plus!). Hahaha!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    That's a good news then, thank you! It looks like I'm not going to go to sleep tonight as it will take me ages to put it together. Would you have any links I could use or would you help me to word it? I know I'm asking a lot though
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 10:20 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would just word it simply as I put above, quoting the parts of Sch4 that say:

    - the NTK must repeat the information in any NTD
    - the NTK must identify the creditor (CP Plus have said it's not them! Never seen that!).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 10:42 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    I would just word it simply as I put above, quoting the parts of Sch4 that say:

    - the NTK must repeat the information in any NTD
    - the NTK must identify the creditor (CP Plus have said it's not them! Never seen that!).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Ok I will try. What do they mean the landowner as their "client" or who is the creditor?! I just can't get my head around it. Need to send it by tomorrow...
    it's too time consuming I think that's why people just choose to pay the tricksters
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 10:55 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,758 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'll tell you what they've done. They have got a back office admin company (debt collector) to write that letter, which is why it talks about 'our client'.

    Trouble is, the letter has been designed to look like it's sent by CP Plus, and very clearly says the creditor is not them but their 'client' who any reasonable person must only take to mean the landowner!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,552Posts Today

5,804Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin