Best way with CP Plus is to ignore them.
Eventually they’ll send you a ‘red’ with a ‘pay up - or else’ notice attached. When that happens, ring them up (but do NOT, under any circumstances, give them any details over the phone!) and politely tell them where to stick the notice.
They will then send the ‘fine’ on to a debt collection agency. When those parasites contact you ring them up - but, again, make sure you do NOT give them any personal details outside confirming the reference number on the letter - and challenge them to sue you in a court of law.
They won’t sue.
I have used the above so many times that I’ve lost count… and never given the leeches a penny.
They’ll never sue because they have no case in law - and they know it!! 
Another way which I’ve found to be particularly successful is as follows: When the letter arrives from the Parasites (aka, Debt Collection Agency), get a piece of paper and write on it - in the top corner is best - the reference number on their letter, making sure that you inadvertantly miss off one digit! (that bit is important!) Now, in BIG letters write SUE ME on the rest of the page. Fold paper and place in envelope. Write address of parasite on envelope.
Now get some brown parcel tape and tape envelope to house brick. Deposit in post - but DO NOT put stamp on envelope!
Never fails! 
DeeBee:
Dipper_Dave:
Harry Monk:
POPLA uphold each and every appeal because the law is on my side, and not that of CP Plus. I’m surprised to see drivers on here (don’t mean you here Toby) advocating that hauliers should pull their pants down and get shafted by a company which regularly appears on programmes such as “Watchdog” because of their spurious and illegal business practices.
Yep the POPLA appeal is binding on the operator and don’t get me wrong I am on your side for not paying these rip off invoices.
However your high-horse stumbles a bit when you knowingly do this on a regular basis, perhaps you are heading for a fall or maybe you will always get away with it as the gullable public that pay the fines will help support you. But at the end of the day (sorry a phrase I hate to use) you are knowingly breaching a contract (insert to add that the validity of this contract is debateabul) due to the stupidity and greed of the other party in the contract.
I wish you luck and I am happy for you not to pay, I just wish everyone else would follow suit untill these cowboys just send an invoice for the true amount in which case your POPLA appeal would fail.
Sorry Dave but you are completely wrong and I think you are missing the point.
It is reasonable to pay a FAIR charge to park on private land. However what is happening here is a private company attempting to charge an UNFAIR amount of money because the original charge was not paid (whether or not the original charge was fair is a whole different debate) for a person to park on SOMEONE ELSES land.
No worries i’ve been wrong before, in this case however I am saying that the parking cowboys issuing Harry with an invoice far beyond what is a true reflection of losses leaves them wide open to be used and abused and make their parking fine scams a joke.
However if they where to issue an invoice for the genuine cost (perhaps with a £1 added on for mailing) a POPLA appeal may not be so easy to win. They will always lose against Harry as their own speculative ridiculous invoices works against them.
However I suspect they ain’t bothered as theres enough gullable folk that will pay the fine.
Now then habitually parking and not paying takes this to a whole new level, will the parking cowboys realise whats going on and start sending those that know the crack a sensible invoice or will they continue untill the pool of the gullable runs dry.
So the whole point of this thread is how easy it is for Harry to park at services and get out of paying due to CP Plus’s ridiculous demands and the illegal exagerated fine they try and impose. The other point is that Harry deliberately does this but fair do’s thats his choice.
toby1234abc:
toby1234abc:
Be careful Harry, the Msa operations could call the Police the next time you park and it could get nasty until all the money is paid back to them via a court order and bailiffs seizing your lorry, freezing your bank account and other assets.
I knew the Police do not get involved with civil matters, but the point I was making, if the money was not paid, they could get a court order, using High court bailifs to obtain the unpaid parking, plus the interest and court charges, with the bailiffs fee.
Refusing to pay then, the bailiffs can then call the Police if an obstruction happened to stop the Bailiffs carrying out their warrant.
This happens to people in houses or at business premises, by being mobile all the time in the lorry, it would be impossible to find out where to enforce the High court order.
You’ve missed the important bits. I’ll add them for you, just to make your version of events correct.
"if the money was not paid, they could apply to the small claims court. This would then be followed by an application for a CCJ. IF HM was stupid enough to continue ignoring them at this point, they could return to the court to ask for enforcement of the CCJ, this would then involve court bailiffs and their fees added on. There is no refusal to pay at this stage as the bailiffs can remove possessions to pay the bill. The police will only attend if there is a chance that a breach of the peace will occur. However, as POPLA are telling CP Plus to cancel all these tickets, none of the above will ever happen
You dress it up well and in a threatening manner Toby. I take it you work for a PPC as you have missed out vital parts of the jigsaw which must happen.
mrginge:
^^^^Thats it really your paying £20+ just to have a toilet near. We get £25 for a night out so i shall keep all of that and ■■■■ in a bush.
There we have it in a nutshell why facilities will never get better.
There seems to be good reason to consider the parking company is ‘Demanding Money with Menaces’, which carries a possible 14 year jail sentence.
Plambert:
mrginge:
^^^^Thats it really your paying £20+ just to have a toilet near. We get £25 for a night out so i shall keep all of that and ■■■■ in a bush.
There we have it in a nutshell why facilities will never get better.
And that is why they are now going to start clamping trucks parked in laybys 
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … ing-32897/
I don’t know the answer apart from DfT have no strategy to deal with it as clearly working with local councils and the private sector doesn’t seem to be working coherently.
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … an-s-23298
speedyguy:
Plambert:
mrginge:
^^^^Thats it really your paying £20+ just to have a toilet near. We get £25 for a night out so i shall keep all of that and ■■■■ in a bush.
There we have it in a nutshell why facilities will never get better.
And that is why they are now going to start clamping trucks parked in laybys
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … ing-32897/
I don’t know the answer apart from DfT have no strategy to deal with it as clearly working with local councils and the private sector doesn’t seem to be working coherently.
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … an-s-23298
since when has it been illegal to park in a layby ?
Denis F:
speedyguy:
Plambert:
mrginge:
^^^^Thats it really your paying £20+ just to have a toilet near. We get £25 for a night out so i shall keep all of that and ■■■■ in a bush.
There we have it in a nutshell why facilities will never get better.
And that is why they are now going to start clamping trucks parked in laybys
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … ing-32897/
I don’t know the answer apart from DfT have no strategy to deal with it as clearly working with local councils and the private sector doesn’t seem to be working coherently.
kentonline.co.uk/ashford/new … an-s-23298
since when has it been illegal to park in a layby ?
Don’t think it’s illegal just the local population and tax payers are fed up with drivers messing lay-bys and ■■■■■■■ in bushes rather than go into provided facilities, however scarce!
Plambert:
Denis F:
mrginge:
^^^^Thats it really your paying £20+ just to have a toilet near. We get £25 for a night out so i shall keep all of that and ■■■■ in a bush.
since when has it been illegal to park in a layby ?
Don’t think it’s illegal just the local population and tax payers are fed up with drivers messing lay-bys and ■■■■■■■ in bushes rather than go into provided facilities, because they have to pay for them rather than leaving it for the local taxpayers pick up the bill/■■■■!
Fixed that for you 
That may have been selective quoting on purpose Dennis 
The article also refered to trucks parked (usually foreeign registered) ignoring restrictions and parked on (private ?) Industrial estates.
Maybe the truck owners could work with the RHA and FTA to allow truckers to have free use of parking and overnighting facilities where they deliver to help overcome the problem?
if you have the popla report go and get a brief and charge them 100 quid per 15 mins for your time plus briefs fees etc and see how they like it
Just to update this thread, appeals based on genuine pre-estimate of loss are no longer likely to be successful following the Beavis case.
Until CP Plus manage to get their paperwork right, this is an appeal I made recently, I have already won one POPLA appeal on these grounds and will let you know the outcome of the second when I receive it.
The appellant does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle. Therefore the provisions of Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply.
The operator has failed to comply with paragraph 9 (2) (e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act in that it has not, in a single notice known as a “notice to keeper” both stated that the operator does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for them and invited the appellant to pay the charge or provide the information. These are separate requirements which must be met separately. The operator has fulfilled the latter but not the former. Therefore the requirements for pursuing the appellant for this charge have not been met.
It should be noted that regardless of any POPLA decision relating to CP Plus invoices, that CP Plus are not currently litigious.
Is this a record for an old thread revival?You dont have to pay a speculative invoice.As it is a matter of Civil law all they can do at best is be reimbursed for their loss,as they cant prove loss they get nothing.Its possible that they could try to interfere with your credit rating but as I dont borrow I am not much bothered.
Harry Monk:
Every week, when I get home, I have one of these waiting on the doormat, sometimes two, occasionally three.
And every time, we go through the same old song and dance routine.
-
I appeal to CP Plus on the grounds that the amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
-
CP Plus reject my appeal but send me the POPLA appeal code.
-
I appeal to POPLA on the grounds that the amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
-
CP Plus pay £32 for the POPLA appeal and somebody from CP Plus spends hours putting together their claim pack.
-
POPLA uphold the appeal.
Are these glorified cowboy car clampers ever going to get it into their thick heads that their operation is illegal?
To make a Claim they cant use a Post Box but would need a Physical Address,…
Hasn’t there been some new law in this area? Law that doesn’t help normal people in regards to parking claims…
Yup, There you go, The Beavis v’s Parking eye judgement that deemed £80 reasonable not a penalty.
supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
