Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: charge notice advice
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
w-all-ace
hi all first post and unforchantly not a nice one !

I received a "Charge Notice" in the post today from a company called CP Plus. Never had anything like this before and would like some advice on this. i ve read on here general consensus is ignore them, but i have a Question about something it says on my notice marked in red. whats the new Legislation?



Thanks in advance

mike
Jlc
Yes, have a read in the stickies.

The new legislation doesn't make a huge amount of difference but the PPC's don't want you to know that... They are twisting it to make it sound like they are more enforceable than they used to be - not so!

The big change was the outlawing of clamping on private land.
w-all-ace
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 26 Oct 2012 - 19:12) *
Yes, have a read in the stickies.

The new legislation doesn't make a huge amount of difference but the PPC's don't want you to know that... They are twisting it to make it sound like they are more enforceable than they used to be - not so!

The big change was the outlawing of clamping on private land.


Thanks ill have a poke in the stickies, so still best to ignore them then ?
Gan
The only difference in their favour is that they're allowed to continue asking the registered keeper to pay if he won't identify the driver.

The ticket though has no more legal basis than it did last month although the British Parking Association has made a very efficient job of misinforming a lazy media of this fact.

There is a change in your favour if you want to fight back.
You can appeal to POPLA, the independent tribunal once you've exhausted the company procedure.

This costs the company £27 + VAT whatever the outcome.
The result is binding on the company but not on you so can be ignored if it goes against you.

No information yet how POPLA are treating the arguments that would normally win in the Small Claims Court.
The PPCs don't seem in any hurry to risk it and some OPs have reported tickets cancelled when they've put in a strong appeal to the company.
w-all-ace
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 26 Oct 2012 - 20:14) *
The only difference in their favour is that they're allowed to continue asking the registered keeper to pay if he won't identify the driver.

The ticket though has no more legal basis than it did last month although the British Parking Association has made a very efficient job of misinforming a lazy media of this fact.

There is a change in your favour if you want to fight back.
You can appeal to POPLA, the independent tribunal once you've exhausted the company procedure.

This costs the company £27 + VAT whatever the outcome.
The result is binding on the company but not on you so can be ignored if it goes against you.

No information yet how POPLA are treating the arguments that would normally win in the Small Claims Court.
The PPCs don't seem in any hurry to risk it and some OPs have reported tickets cancelled when they've put in a strong appeal to the company.



would i have a good case as the reason i was there so long is my headlights stopped working and a guy i had just met up with who i had sold some parts had to came to help as he was still in the area, ended up having mine and his bumpers off the cars to swap lights see if it was the units had failed as we have the same car. Ended up being a damaged wire which we fixed wile we were there. He come as it was bad traffic and i knew i would have not got home before it got dark so had to stop and attempt a fix.

mike
bama
"parked on our client's property"

nice of them to say that.

file all the letters you receive in the drawer and live life.
No need to go on about the incident in a public forum.
Gan
A better case is their own letter that refers to their client's property and a charge of £90

Their client's property means that they've only been employed to look after the car park and only their client can make a contract with you. They have no rights in the land and can't sue anybody.

It's obvious that nobody agrees to pay £90 for the right to stay a bit longer.
It therefore falls under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and can't be enforced in a court
It's to discourage parking and is therefore a penalty that they're attempting to disguise a contract = not enforceable

The Department for Transport Guidelines and even the BPA Code of Practice refer to a loss.
The DfT in particular makes clear that only a loss can be claimed.

You can either ignore them or go in with a hard appeal making clear that you understand the law very clearly and it will cost them £27 at POPLA if they don't cave in.
Jlc
QUOTE (w-all-ace @ Fri, 26 Oct 2012 - 20:48) *
would i have a good case

Yes, they would more than happy to see your plight and cancel the ticket immediately. These companies aren't really in it for the money - they just want to see the car parks well managed and loathe issuing the penalties.

P.s. if you believe the above please send me £100 wink.gif
The Slithy Tove
Funny how it claims the car was observed parked for 2h 53m, yet the evidence it uses for this observation is the car driving past certain points at certain times. Not the same thing at all. Other inaccuracies include the point that the POFA does not put any obligations on the driver or registered keeper to do anything at all.
pressandgo
to my mind the two photographs merely show you entering a car park at a certain time and leaving at a certain time. This is not proof you were parked in the car park for this length of time.

andy_foster
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 26 Oct 2012 - 20:14) *
The only difference in their favour is that they're allowed to continue asking the registered keeper to pay if he won't identify the driver.


Not quite.

If they ask for the driver's details and the RK is unwilling or unable to provide them, the RK will be liable for any charge if the driver would otherwise have been liable to pay it.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.