Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CP Plus
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Anyone had anything from these jokers?

I received a PCN for overstaying at Exeter Services (I was asleep, as I know where I stand I responded with the below)...

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have received a parking charge notice under your reference .......................

To enable me to consider your claim, please advise of the following:

1 What evidence do you hold that shows I was parking in your car park over the

allotted time? If you hold documentary evidence please provide copies of the same. As a private car park, any claim you have lies in contract and not in statute. I could only be contractually liable if I personally parked a car in the car park. Mere evidence that a car registered to me was parked in your car park does not prove that it was the case that I parked it.

2 Please advise me how it is alleged I have breached any purported contract.

In anticipation of receiving the documents requested above I would make the following comments:

1. As your claim lies in contract it represents a claim for damages for breach of that contract. Your penalty charge of £80 bears no correlation to the damages you have allegedly incurred

2. In light of the damages you have claimed, your claim represents a penalty charge and is consequently not recoverable in contract law.

3. It is my view that any contractual terms you rely upon to claim your penalty charge is unfair and consequently unenforceable pursuant to the Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

4. I assume that CP Plus Limited is signed up to the BPAs Approved Operator Scheme? If so I would advise you that the charge notice sent is in breach of their Code of Practice, as the letter implies that liability lies solely with the owner/keeper not the driver:

2.2 The paragraph 67) A) (Enforcement Action on outstanding parking tickets – Notice to Owner - page 13); this “letter to the owner” should make no reference to asking for payment but should specifically point out the details of the contravention and request that the owner furnish the details of the driver at the time the charge was incurred.

Such a breach of practice could result in sanctions being taken by the BPA or the DVLA both of whom state that the CoP is fully enforceable.

5. Also I would like to point out that this ‘letter’ from yourselves is in breach of the "The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006 No.3429)" as it does not contain the full company address, rather listing a Post Office Box.

Please refrain from any further contact regarding this matter unless and until you have answered each of the points above and where appropriate provided copies of the letters referred to. Given the points that I raised, I feel I should make you aware that I am considering making further representations to other bodies including the DVLA, BPA and Trading Standards.

Yours faithfully,

Today I received a reply:

Thank you for your letter Concerning the above Parking Charge Notice

We monitor and manage this car park with camaras on behalf of and the on the instructions of our clients in accordance with their terms & conditions, which are displayed on signage throughout the parking area.

This PCN was issued correctly and legally according to the DVLA Code of Practice [Nb: It wasn't as it claimed I was liable] for the management of camara controlled car parks and BPA guidelines [again it wasn't]

This is the appeals department. What you have sent isn't an appeal, but a standard letter [wasn't standard as I added several other points that weren't on the letter I downloaded], disputing our right to issue this notice, that we receive several of on a daily basis. We are not obliged to address the individual points it contains [a court case may be interesting in that case].

We will accept the reduced payment within 7 days....

If not receieved further action to be taken.

Should I do nothing? I personally hope they take me to court, as a bit of compensation would be welcome.
Although your first letter is spot on, these people are scammers who don't particularly care about adhering to the law. They just want your money. They will mention pretty much anything they think might scare you into thinking their claims for your money have any kind of legal basis.

You should ignore. You really should have ignored in the first place. If you'd ignored in the first place then they would have been slightly unsure of who they were dealing with (you might have been a barrister or a poice inspector, and they'd typically send half a dozen threatening letters and then give up. Now you might get a few more than that, but the outcome will be the same.

They won't have the bottle to take you to court (you'd win), so they will try scaring you with threats of debt collectors, CCJs, Court action, etc.

Its all crap. File it away somewhere (just in case) and ignore it.

its a scam and they know it

the best advice is to ignore it and any follw ups

tell friends family and colleagues
Good letter.

As for theirs...
"This PCN was issued correctly and legally according to the DVLA Code of Practice"

Thats a clear breach of CPUTR, a de facto offence IMV.

( A LOT of PPCs make this DVLA 'Code' claim as they all willfully ignore the BPA Code despite having signed up to it.
See this

But then they shoot themsleves in the foot with the DVLA 'Code' claim as their alternative ! )

There is no such Code so it is "Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not."

(SCHEDULE 1) is an Unfair practice and amounts to a criminal offence.

In relation to codes of conduct as defined, there are two scheduled
offences: falsely claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct; or that the code has
an endorsement from a public or other body.

(The DVLA is a public body - it is a Trading Name of the DfT.)

Definition of Code:
“Code of conduct” means an agreement or set of rules (which is not imposed by legal
or administrative requirements), which governs the behaviour of traders who undertake
to be bound by it in relation to one or more commercial practices or business sectors’ (reg 2).

It should be noted that
"All transgressions, criminal or not, are made community infringements under
Part 8 of the Enterprise Act (Regs. 27-9), so meaning that they are
enforceable by the authorities by way of civil injunctions."

Could write much more, PM me if you have the resolve to teach TS about CPUTR
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.