# Moto services cherwell. Parking fine.



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

Hi,
Just had a £60.00 parking fine for going over the allotted 2 hours at Moto Services Cherwell. To cut a long story short.... We had to leave France a week early due to my partner being unwell. The ferry was delayed by 2 hours due to a medical emergency on board, so arrived in Portsmouth at approx 11.30 pm. Having driven 250 miles in France to the ferry and facing a 200 mile drive back to Derbyshire with my partner feeling awful and me knackered we decided to rest up at the services as per the adverts " take a rest as tiredness kills " .

Must admit never saw the parking charges that were displayed and just wanted to get my head down. Is this charge enforceable?. I know people in the past have advised not pay but what is the consensus now?
Look forward to your replies. 
Ps... shall be appealing with a grovelling truthful letter to the powers that be. However not hopeful for a result.

Nidge


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Their response will partly depend on how much over the 2hrs you stayed.If it was less than an extra hour,then apologise and suggest that you pay £15 as a goodwill gesture.

cabby


----------



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

cabby said:


> Their response will partly depend on how much over the 2hrs you stayed.If it was less than an extra hour,then apologise and suggest that you pay £15 as a goodwill gesture.
> 
> cabby


Thanks for that Cabby.
We overstayed our welcome by approx 1hr 30 mins

Nidge


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Try this site to see if it can offer any help or advice...

http://www.pepipoo.com/

It is well regarded on the car forum I am a member of

Graham :smile2:


----------



## HurricaneSmith (Jul 13, 2007)

*This once happened to me nidge1.

I refused to admit or agree that it was a fine, but reminded them that I considered it to be a parking invoice. This is what I wrote:-*

_Re: ref ******** for (My car registration) from ** February ****__

Dear Sir or Madam,

I, as registered keeper of the above vehicle, dispute this invoice. The driver must have been a customer of ******** and I can only imagine they did not see the signage. In any event the charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss, as well as being an amount larger than permitted under the BPA code of practice to which you subscribe. I believe you have failed to follow the BPA code of practice and attempted to impose a penalty charge for either breach of contract or trespass.

I would like to point out a few points:

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman ( 2008 ), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .*  The ********** is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.   The ********** could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to those issued by the Police and Council Wardens.   The signage on site states that parking is limited to 1 hour with no return within 1 hour. There is no option to stay for longer by paying. A clear penalty.   I would assume that there is and was no contract between ********** and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied. 

The charge that was levied is an unfair term, and therefore not binding, pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

I will not name the driver as I am under no statutory obligation to do so and I also cannot remember who was driving at this time and date stated. As a result of this, I believe these correspondents have no relevance to myself as keeper of the vehicle.

Because of the above reasons and grounds for dispute in this matter, I do not wish to receive any further correspondence from your company, except to state that this matter has ended and there will be no further proceedings. If I am sent any further unwarranted distressing correspondents that threaten proceedings or demand financial compensation in any way, I will pass these on to police and start a claim of harassment. My time and financial cost in legally researching this matter has added up to a sum beyond what you could reasonably request by your company with regards to the administration of this matter.

This has been sent by recorded delivery to reach you in reasonable time from the date of your letter ** February ****.

Yours faithfully

HurricaneSmith_

*Needless to say, in my case I received a reply saying that they would not pursue to matter. Good luck with whatever you choose to do!!!
*

.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Nice letter HS, there appears to be disputes as to how enforceable and legal such things are on various forums, I agree they are NOT a fine but an invoice, and an invoice for an unspecified service that you had not contracted for, in that you had simply overstayed an artifical restriction.

It will be interesting to read how this progresses, I know that we received a similar one in the car park at Brent Cross, London when I had parked in a disabled parking place with my French Blue permit on the dashboard.

The ticket alleged that I had not displayed a valid permit, so I took pictures and sent them to the e-mail address stated, with both the ticket and the permit in the same shot, so that there could be no dispute.

We also said that there was no way we would be paying this "fine" under any circumstances.

They wrote back asking for the name of the driver, we replied saying we did not know as it was now several weeks later and suggested that they once again looked at the pictures and attached them yet again. We have heard nothing since, this occurred at the beginning of June.

So, I wish you well, sadly I don't think case histories are as clear as we would wish as cases have gone both ways....

Dave


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

The answer from Huricanre Smith is the one I would go for, or read my link.

cabby
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ng-tickets-I-dodged-service-station-fine.html


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

This is the most recent MoneySaving Expert link, it has some very clear guidelines and it may well be that you use HS's letter in conjunction with the routes suggested on this link;

Money Saving Expert

Law on the Web also has useful guides;

Law on the Web

The key point is NOT to pay but to dispute, in reasonable terms stating why you won't pay as it is unfair, and in your case would have been unsafe for you to continue. You had already exceeded the maximum number of hours driving for a professional driver AFAIK, so to continue would have put yourself and others at serious risk.

Dave


----------



## stewartwebr (May 27, 2005)

When I got similar "fine" I emailed them asking if I was legally obliged to disclose the driver. They ignored e-mail and sent a follow up reminder, I again e-mailed them the same question and I got a very short reply back stating "Charge Cancelled"


Good luck


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I bin them, and keep doing so until they get fed up of sending them, never acknowledge them, at all, in any way, never paid a fine for parking.

What does this mean please >>> *   <<<


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I don't know about Scotland but the law was changed in England & Wales in 2012 so that the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for parking "fines" relating to private land and not the driver.

Also people might like to read about last year's Supreme Court decision which upheld an £85 "fine".

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/11/private-parking-fines-fair-says-supreme-court-ruling-421168/


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

There is a school of thought that says ignoring them is the way to go...that way they never have a real person to badger. It does take nerve though...

The bottom line is that they invoice the registered keeper but cannot prove who the driver was at the time and you are under no obligation to provide those details. Without the driver they cannot attempt to secure monies...catch 22 really.

Graham :smile2:


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

peribro said:


> I don't know about Scotland but the law was changed in England & Wales in 2012 so that the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for parking "fines" relating to private land and not the driver.


Now I wasn't aware of that...

The same article above gives some helpful advice...

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-appeal-a-parking-ticket-on-private-land

...but make sure to read the Pepipoo site I gave you OP as this is the one espoused by many petrol-heads

Graham :smile2:


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

GMJ said:


> There is a school of thought that says ignoring them is the way to go...that way they never have a real person to badger. It does take nerve though...
> 
> The bottom line is that they invoice the registered keeper but cannot prove who the driver was at the time and you are under no obligation to provide those details. Without the driver they cannot attempt to secure monies...catch 22 really.
> 
> Graham :smile2:


I think that used to be the case but as Peter says above the law changed in 2012 and they CAN now just come after the registered keeper. I had a few before that date and just binned them. Hurricanes letter or similar will probably do the job though.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

barryd said:


> I think that used to be the case but as Peter says above the law changed in 2012 and they CAN now just come after the registered keeper. I had a few before that date and just binned them. Hurricanes letter or similar will probably do the job though.


I guess our posts crossed Bazza...see #13 above

Graham :smile2:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I got one in a large retail car park about 6 months ago, they sent 4-5 letters, which I binned, not heard anything since.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

This is a good way to discourage shoppers. And then they bleat takings are down??

Ray.


----------



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

Thanks for all the useful replies. I will let you know what the outcome is whenever.

Nidge


----------



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

Hi,
Update to our parking fine/invoice...... We have just received a reply from CP Plus Ltd who operate the parking for Motto Cherwell Services.
As I said in my first post we appealed the fine with a grovelling letter (but truthfull).
Good news they have upheld our appeal and sent us sincere apologies and stated that the notice has been cancelled and no further action will take place.
This has given us faith in mankind!!!
Once again thanks for all your useful replies.

Nidge


----------



## HurricaneSmith (Jul 13, 2007)

That's fantastic news and a great result, Nidge. Very well done!

Thanks also for the update.





.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I also applaud you for the result.

However, just for any others reading this thread it might be worth mentioning, that since the change in the law referred to above by Peter, while all of HurricanSmiths arguments he used in his case are valid, it now would be irrelevant to refuse to name the driver since the onus is now on the Registered Owner - a change in the law which I think is of dubious merit.

I would still recommend refuting a 'fine' on the basis of Hurricane's challenge. One good reason is that if the lawyers for the parking company think that the Court could cut their claim by 50% or more, and then balance that against the cost of taking proceedings they would probably drop the matter. That s assuming they can afford a real lawyer and do not rely on some 'bully-boy' lower-deck lawyer for their advice.

It would be interesting to know in which Court a parking firm would take action, County Court or Small Claims Court?

In fact I am not sure that a parking company have a right to sue for a loss - the action might have to be taken in the name of the property owner/leasee. If I am right I would also address the 'Hurricane' letter to the Company Secretary of [e.g. Tesco]

If enough people take action like this it could come to the point where no parking firms want to bid for the contracts on the basis of a share in the 'fines', because the return would not cover the cost of 'operatives' or whatever they like to call the prowlers. I also wonder how many car parks get clogged up with cars that deter other customers. For the ones that do, maybe the [Tesco] has to employ people directly, but the legal difficulties for them would persist.

Other alternatives would be : Charge for parking and refund for customers at the till, or refund at the information desk if leaving at end of one(?) hour - ticket only valid at the exit machine within ten minutes of paying - just like airport parking.

Geoff


----------



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

nidge1 said:


> Hi,
> Update to our parking fine/invoice...... We have just received a reply from CP Plus Ltd who operate the parking for Motto Cherwell Services.
> As I said in my first post we appealed the fine with a grovelling letter (but truthfull).
> Good news they have upheld our appeal and sent us sincere apologies and stated that the notice has been cancelled and no further action will take place.
> ...


ANOTHER UDATE.
Seems like CP Plus left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing!! Had a email yesterday from them as the above post. Today received a letter from them saying " that as I had not paid the £60.00 within 14 days the charge has increased to £100.00 and if this amount is not paid within 14 days a debt recovery charge will also be incurred". 
Look forward to the next instalment.

Nidge

PS... Think I will withdraw my comment on my faith being restored in mankind


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

From what I read and hear life in UK does seem to be going down this route more and more.

Ray.


----------



## nidge1 (Jul 26, 2009)

raynipper said:


> From what I read and hear life in UK does seem to be going down this route more and more.
> 
> Ray.


Think you are right Ray. Makes you wonder what it will be like in another couple of decades.

Nidge


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

nidge1 said:


> ANOTHER UDATE.
> Seems like CP Plus left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing!! Had a email yesterday from them as the above post. Today received a letter from them saying " that as I had not paid the £60.00 within 14 days the charge has increased to £100.00 and if this amount is not paid within 14 days a debt recovery charge will also be incurred".
> Look forward to the next instalment.
> 
> ...


I think that could count as harassment and render them liable to action on YOUR behalf for damages - I saw how distressed you were to receive it, almost like a nervous wreck and I am sure lots of others on here witnessed the same through your posts..... :nerd: 

You were so upset at this turn of events that you felt compelled to seek professional counselling advice (I am happy to provide such a thing for a purely massive fee :wink2: ) as you work towards regaining your calm state again (which may well take several months of counselling - I could retire soon (oh, yes, I am retired.....) but happy to come out of retirement if needed....

Almost worth a counter-claim now just to make the point - I am sure there will be some legal advice along soon.....:wink2:

Dave


----------



## HurricaneSmith (Jul 13, 2007)

It's probably nothing more than cross communication on their part, as their office has now upheld your appeal in writing and stated that the notice has been cancelled.

I guess you will simply return a scanned a copy of their cancellation letter, together with a polite letter of your own thanking them, and ask them to update their arrears department with their final decision that waved all action.





.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Sadly, HurricaneSmith may well be correct since the letter will probably have been posted about a month ago to allow for delays and the e-mail only in the last 24 hours.....

Oh well, there goes my retirement plans yet again.......

It was a good idea before such an inconvenient detail was noted..... maybe the originators of the whole thing won't notice the difference in date/time and will pay up like they hope pensioners do to avoid the threat of legal action and bailiffs on the doorstep......?

Perhaps........

Dave


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

HurricaneSmith said:


> It's probably nothing more than cross communication on their part, as their office has now upheld your appeal in writing and stated that the notice has been cancelled.
> 
> I guess you will simply return a scanned a copy of their cancellation letter, together with a polite letter of your own thanking them, and ask them to update their arrears department with their final decision that waved all action.
> 
> .


I wouldnt bother answering now. See if they send anything else. The OP has it writing that its been upheld. Good job.


----------



## HurricaneSmith (Jul 13, 2007)

Penquin said:


> Sadly, HurricaneSmith may well be correct ......................... Dave


:grin2: :grin2: :grin2:

Not according to my wife, Dave. :frown2: :smile2:


----------



## Suenliam (Mar 22, 2006)

I think I would reply as suggested by HurricaneSmith. These companies are so inefficient you could end up having to defend a summons (or whatever the legal term is) if you do not inform the second lot that they are behind the times.
I know you would be right to defend the summons, but no need for the hassle if you send a simple letter now.
Dave's post retirement plan scuppered again:wink2:
Sorry your wife was unwell and hope all is sorted now.
Sue


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

I would ignore.

The letter was probably printed and in the out tray before they even sent you the email. The email clearly informed you that the invoice (I hate it when people refer to these as fines!!) had been cancelled, so that is what you go by.

IF they send another demand/threat/invoice/letter then THAT is when you reply to them explaining that you have it in writing that they have cancelled the invoice (include a copy of the email clearly showing the date/time it was sent).


----------



## psychoboii (Feb 27, 2017)

Hi All, 

Thanks for this community here - I am also one of the more recent victims of the scam that goes on at Moto Cherwell Services. I have been fined £100(£60 if paid within 14 days). We were not aware at all of the parking restrictions/charges and ended up staying little over 3 hrs, and spending in the services much more than we would normally - however, they won't consider that. 

I emailed CP Plus Appeals section, sighting insignificant signage, poor weather and low light conditions(which was the case), and the fact that we were totally unaware, however, they have come back saying we still need to pay or approach POPLA for further dispute resolution. 

I have sent them an email using the template shared by HurricaneSmith (Great job, thanks for sharing that!)

Can someone guide us on the next steps or tips to deal with these cowboys?

Thanks, your help would be much appreciated. 

Cheers
RS


----------



## mike800966 (May 1, 2005)

Thanks to everyone for a most helpful thread, I can feel in my water that this is going to be a lot more commonplace in the future.

We now all know which operator is involved and which service area and I suggest that we vote with our feet and simply use them as public urinals,, and then drive away without spending any money,,,,within the time limit of course.

Mike & Ann


----------

