I am guessing that I should be giving it short-shrift ... the CEO's wife got pinged, so I can't just ignore it, I have to be seen to be doing something, so standard letter to CP Plus, DVLA and BPA?

I assume that nothing has changed significantly in the past 12 months?




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

There is no need to reply

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is to ignore them. For more information about this recommendation and private parking companies, click this link.


or you could change your wife.

Politically not good to recommend to the CEO that his wife should ignore it ... not that I need the kudos but ...

I have used this wording to good effect in the past:

We acknowledge receipt of above penalty notice.

We note that CP Plus Limited is a member of the British Parking Association and operates under the Approved Operator Scheme, and as such should operate under the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA have already made a rapid change to their Code of Practice, as I am sure you are aware. The BPA issued a note containing the following:-

"2. Keeper/driver liability

2.1 Changes to Code of Practice - Part 2 Parking Tickets

The paragraph 36) C) – xviii (Parking Ticket Issue - page 10) will be amended to read:
“What will happen next if no payment or challenge is received within the time(s) allowed and any further charges that may be accrued, e.g. “the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle will be requested from the DVLA and a request will be sent to the keeper asking for the name and address of the driver at the time the charge was incurred””.

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.

3. Implementation
3.1 Because of the importance and possible implications of this information, these amendments are to be implemented immediately. Members involved in ticketing operations should contact BPA to confirm receipt and acknowledgement of this notice, and should contact BPA again to confirm an implementation timescale within a week of sending the first e-mail."

Please also take note of the fact that the 'Reminder' clearly states that CP Plus Limited is attempting to shift the liability of an alleged contract to a third party - namely this company. This is not a genuine PCN as issued by councils so any alleged contract is clearly with the driver whom CP Plus Limited have never addressed nor as far as I can tell even tried to identify prior to demanding money from the Registered Keeper. This is clearly not lawful. It is also against the BPA Code of Practice (COP) which the DVLA insists is adhered to and enforced. As I understand it, the BPA has made all members of the “Approved Operator Scheme” (AOS) personally sign off that they have adopted appropriate wording viz:-

"I hereby confirm that I have read and understood the BPA Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and unregulated Public Car Parks. Part 1 Vehicle Immobilisation or Removal and/or Part 2 Parking Tickets and will ensure that, as a member of the British Parking Association, the company:

1. Complies with these Codes of Practice....... "

The BPA has made it clear to all AOS members that written communications should "make it clear that the liability is with the driver"

AOS members have also been told by the BPA that communications should only convey the message that:

“the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle will be requested from the DVLA and a request will be sent to the keeper asking for the name and address of the driver at the time the charge was incurred”

CP Plus Limited is a member of the AOS, as per the published list on the BPA website but is most clearly not adhering to the Code of Practice nor to the Notes that the BPA has sent to you.

This 'Charge' is in fact an invoice from a private company and is not a Penalty Notice. Penalties in civil contracts, where such contracts actually exist, are unenforceable in English law. This is long established as Excel parking recently found out in Court when losing the case they foolishly mounted to enforce such a charge. Furthermore, as an invoice it does not disclose whether the items are subject to VAT and does not disclose the company’s VAT number. This falls foul of numerous HMRC and Companies House regulations.

I trust the above is considered with full weight given to the legal implications of your actions, and a full apology issued. If this action is not taken, we will undertake the duty to notify the relevant financial and legal bodies with regards to your flagrant disregard for company and finance law. Furthermore, the BPA and DVLA will also be notified and the latter recommended investigating this complaint regarding alleged breach of the COP or inappropriate use of information and report on the outcome.


// end

I assume that the references within it still stand (Code of Practice etc)

There's nothing to say a letter, however good, will make any difference. It's an automated system, after all.

Best to educate the CEO and his wife.

true true. The last time I had to deal with a PPC, I used this letter. Subsequently ignored, but the letter to the DVLA brought a swift response stating that the "PCN" had been cancelled.

I think that it would be a better result that just ignoring it ...

BPA stuff is irrelevant. They have no legal status and have nothing to do with any of this.

Simply write back with

"Dear Sir

I am in receipt of your invoice.

No payment will be forthcoming. Desist contact or issue court proceedings against the person you think you hold an alleged contract with within 7 days."


Whatever your write will make not a blind bit of difference, so don't put too much effort in to it.

I would be saving the stamps.

hhmm. Short & Sweet is good. I will still send something over to the DVLA, as I would like confirmation that it has been cancelled.

I'm not sure you can cancel an unenforceable invoice!

I don't see how the DVLA can help. They just sell addresses to anybody for £2.50 a pop.

If you do need to be 'seen tobe doing something' then the letter Alexis suggests above, sent to the PPC would be the best way to go.

The DVLA? I agree, cannot see how that would help at all, they certainly wouldn't get the PPC to cancel the invoice.

You will still be bombarded with junk mail, but at least you can show your boss you did all you could, and that their junk mail has no legal standing, and they have chosen to ignore your demand that they desist. Beyond that, you're then back to the 'ignore' stage again.

Also show the CEO the "Watchdog" paper aeroplane clip.

Just telling the CEO that it's nothing more than a spurious, unenforceable invoice should make him realise the situation, as one would assume he is a professional businessman.

If you insist on writing to the PPC, use no stamps, but write 'check enclosed' on the envelope.

Simon

Forgive my dumbness, I'm rather confused about the background here...

Under what circumstances was the "PCN" issued/who was driving and who is receiving the letters?

Forgiving your dumbness, it's not too bright to ask the OP to state who was driving, is it?

Ok perhaps I'm being really dumb now, but with identifiable material removed from the letters how would this be an issue?

The PPC goons can identify cases from the slimmest of information.

On the other hand, it's only CP Plus. They ain't going to do anything.

So why do we bother scrubbing our personal details???

The current advice on here is not to post up anything at all from a PPC, let alone scrubbed.

We know the content of 99% of the standard letters that go out on these chains so don't usually need to see them - only if there's some element of doubt, for example railway car parks/rail byelaws issues.

One PPC is believed to have used forum posts as evidence in a small claims court, so the advice here is not to admit anything that might give a PPC even the slightest scrap of possible ammunition.

The OP should not furnish us with any details of who was driving. Let's not make anything easier for a PPC, no matter how small in value.

Check if the VAT registration number on the "Notice" is genuine by looking up the HMRC website; if it isn't report the parking company to HMRC.

I checked the VAT number and it does come up as accurate ... more the pity.

I was surprised today to receive a letter from CP Plus, asking for full name and address of driver so that they can reissue the notice.

Usual text about it staying open if I don't, and further action will be taken if this doesn't happen or payment is forthcoming.

The letter subscribes to current Companies House legislation, but the header and signature look photocopies or terrible scanning and then reprinted.

Conventional wisdom says file it and ignore it, but if one wanted to respond, best text to include?

Hi Crox

Your "Notice" looks exactly the same as mine from TPS Parking Solutions other than the logo and reference to CP Plus Ltd in the text, address is the same post office/PO Box near a retail warehouse park in Borehamwood.

I'm at the same stage as you, i.e. they're asking for driver's details, and if these aren't forthcoming (which they aren't and never will be) the notice processed as normal, etc., etc.

So I'm just waiting and ignoring.....(or vice versa)

Part of the Ranger Services domain
see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry212848

I believe Ranger's true office is
Ranger Services Ltd, Isopad House,
Shenley Road, Borehamwood, Herts, WD6 1TE

I wouldn't write to them but some people may want to 'return to sender' unopened post to there

Interesting, Bama.

Some people may also want to send them empty unstamped envelopes so they incur "Insufficient Postage" charges. Oh to be able to see their little faces when thy open these envelopes, expecting big cheques for in return for their "schemes", only to find said envelopes empty.

I know these clowns. They gave up after two letters.