m1cks:
Thanks Weeto, Snowman had me questioning my memory for a while. Glad I’m not losing it yet.
Oh well. Egg on face time for me then. Oops 
Harry Monk:
Current advice is not to ignore, some private parking companies (PPC) have started taken Small Claims Court action to enforce these notices, and although CP Plus has yet to do this, there’s always a first time. The Small Claims Court will throw out the case but it would be a faff to attend.There are two things you need to do to get one of these cancelled.
Firstly appeal to the PPC on the grounds that “The amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss”. Use these exact words.
The PPC will reject the appeal, but issue a POPLA reference number. Go on POPLAs website, enter the number and appeal on the grounds that “The sum claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss”. Again, use these exact words, no more and no less. (The appeal costs you nothing, it will cost CP Plus £27, another good reason to play it this way
)
POPLA will consider the appeal 6-8 weeks later and will uphold it. POPLA have NEVER rejected a “Genuine pre-estimate of loss” based appeal.
As per DaiDap’s post above.
The invoice (it’s a speculative invoice, not a fine) won’t have been issued by Parking Eye, but by CP Plus. Although CP Plus have never taken Small Claims Court action against anybody, it’s still best not to ignore it, not least because for the cost of a second class stamp and five minutes of your time, you get to make the shyster, cowboy, glorified car clamping company CP Plus pay £27 for a POPLA appeal which they are slated to lose.
Appeal to CP Plus on the grounds that “The amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss”. They won’t even read it, you’ll just get one of these back.
Now, go to POPLA’s website, enter the POPLA reference number and your personal details, takes about two minutes. Give as the reason for your appeal “The amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss”. Nothing else. Nothing about being too tired to pay, forgetting to pay, it’s not fair, nada. Just “The amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss”.
About a month later you’ll be emailed CP Plus’s evidence pack, it must take somebody hours to put it together so at least you can feel righteous in that you are keeping some office clerk in work.
POPLA will email you, telling you the date the appeal will be heard, and asking you if you wish to add any supplementary information. Ignore this.
Another month later and the appeal will be held, and upheld, you will be emailed giving full details of the judgement. Quite simply CP Plus did not lose £100 because you parked at Michaelwood Services, they do not have the authority to “fine” you and both CP Plus and POPLA know this.
Would it not be a lot less hassle to either pay the parking amount (assuming you get it back and it’s not taken out your night out money) or simply park elsewhere?
As harry said
Popla all the way since law changed the other year
Ive won 6 like this now
Modern day robbery on the highways then ,at least ■■■■ Turpin wore a mask.
I have seen signs that say by agreeing to park here, you accept our contract of conditions, or some tosh.
The Msa,s know drivers only need 9 or 11 hours off but still charge per 24 hours.
Harry, Parking Eye DO manage some MSA car parks
Just checked mine
4 with parking eye
2 with cp plus
trubster:
Harry, Parking Eye DO manage some MSA car parks
Ah, ok. same advice applies though.
Muckaway:
Would it not be a lot less hassle to either pay the parking amount (assuming you get it back and it’s not taken out your night out money) or simply park elsewhere?
Well, it’s a fair point, and I do generally avoid parking in motorway service areas whenever possible but the fact is that CP Plus have a business model which is based on intimidation. They issue invoices which are closely modelled on Police and council Penalty Charge Notices demanding punitive amounts which bear no relation to their actual losses. They know they should not be doing this- they have had literally thousands of POPLA appeals go against them on the grounds that they are not claiming genuine losses but still they continue to issue these “fines” because they know that 95% or recipients will be frightened into paying them.
CP Plus profit from exploiting the fact that the vast majority of people are easily intimidated and do not understand contract law. I profit from CP Plus by virtue of the fact that I am not easily intimidated and I do understand contract law. The tacit understanding I have with CP Plus is that they can continue harassing and bullying Joe Public, while Harry Monk continues to park his truck for free in motorway service areas and pockets the £25 himself instead.
Swings and roundabouts.
Very straight and sensible answer from Harry there. Judging from some of the postings tonight, it’s in the minority.
Thanks for all the excellent replies lads. i’ll have a think about my course of action & update.
It is a Parking Eye Letter.
I normally pay every time but I was knacked/■■■■■■ off/being a rebel at the time. I am an owner operator.
If you are too busy to do the appeals by yourself, parkingticketappeals.org.uk/parking-eye/ will do it for £16
Never ignore parking eye, but never pay them either 
BTW: The appeals are easy and involve sending 2 template appeals. If you can’t do it, PTAS will and guarantee to win
Silver_Surfer:
Thanks for all the excellent replies lads. i’ll have a think about my course of action & update.It is a Parking Eye Letter.
I normally pay every time but I was knacked/■■■■■■ off/being a rebel at the time. I am an owner operator.
Ah, ok. I’m expecting my next letter to be from Parking Eye then, I parked at Michaelwood Services about a fortnight ago. Will make a nice change from CP Plus I suppose, although I’ll treat it exactly the same way. Important thing with Parking Eye is not to ignore, they are very litigious and will take small claims court action if you don’t nip it in the bud.
Send the notice back and tell them to shove it where the sun don’t shine, if all other European countries let you park on msa’s free of charge why can’t this country.
Oh I know, British drivers haven’t got any balls to tell them.
How MSA’s have got a nerve to charge for parking is beyond me, £16! For what? 9 hours on a 55 foot piece of pish stained tarmac, 3 showers between all the mugs who park there. Truck stops are the same, ■■■■ holes all of them.
Wouldn’t catch me in any of them.
Harry Monk:
Silver_Surfer:
Thanks for all the excellent replies lads. i’ll have a think about my course of action & update.It is a Parking Eye Letter.
I normally pay every time but I was knacked/■■■■■■ off/being a rebel at the time. I am an owner operator.
Ah, ok. I’m expecting my next letter to be from Parking Eye then, I parked at Michaelwood Services about a fortnight ago. Will make a nice change from CP Plus I suppose, although I’ll treat it exactly the same way. Important thing with Parking Eye is not to ignore, they are very litigious and will take small claims court action if you don’t nip it in the bud.
Silly question same rules up here in Scotland ?
As Okey as said, free parking in Europe, if the UK is in the EU, how does the UK get away with parking charges.
It is supposed to be harmonious between member States.
UK drivers have no backbone and like getting shafted by these greedy firms, if they all wrote to a MP or Euro MP, things may change, until then pay thirty quid for a nine hour break.
Six course meal in Euroland,with wine and cheese.
None of this "your ten pound meal voucher will only get you a meat pie or a banger and some mash, but you can have some kiddies fish fingers,as you are a grown man that has worked for 15 hours,do you want kids baked beans with that.? "
Well, this time POPLA didn’t even need to get as far as considering my reasons for appeal before telling CP Plus to go do one.
Harry Monk (Appellant) vCP Plus Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 449141128001 arising out of the presence at MOTO, Chieveley, on 28 November 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark NJ08AUV.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 4 December 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice
for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle exceeded the maximum
free stay period at the site.
The appellant has made a number of submissions. However, the appellant
has not admitted to being the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, I find that the
provisions of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply.
I find that the operator has failed to show that it has complied with paragraph
9(2)(e) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it has not, in a
single document known as a ‘notice to keeper,’ both stated that the
operator does not know both the name of the driver and a current address
for service for them and invited the appellant to pay the charge or provide
this information. These are clearly separate requirements which must be met
separately. The operator has fulfilled the latter but not the former. Therefore, I
cannot find that the requirements for pursuing the appellant for this charge
have been met.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal and need not consider the appellant’s
substantive case.
Farah Ahmad
Assessor