CEL PCN - Not sure on the new PoFA provisions, Friend has a ticket, asked me to assist, not been here for a while |
CEL PCN - Not sure on the new PoFA provisions, Friend has a ticket, asked me to assist, not been here for a while |
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 19:37
Post
#1
|
||||
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
Hi
Friend of mine got a PCN from CE-Services.co.uk and I told them to appeal, but they're not the type to make a fuss so helping them out. Summary: PCN states "Permit Parking" Registered Keeper of the car was not driving the vehicle Vehicle is shown in movement, where the CCTV images were taken, with the driver inside the vehicle Advice I'm asking for: I'm not sure about the PoFA provisions these days as I see a number of threads for CEL saying you can say the RK is not the driver, cease and desist, remove me otherwise fall foul of the DPA, I was going to email them this... --------------------------------------------------- Ref: PCN:XXXXXXXXXX I was not the driver of the vehicle and the parking notice does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as the registered keeper I require that is it cancelled, for me the matter is closed You are required to treat this as a section 10 notice under the DPA. As you no longer have "reasonable cause" to continue processing my data, you must cease processing within 21 days except to sufficient information to confirm that you have done so. Further misuse of this data will constitute harassment and cause significant distress Misuse of person data is a tort, as confirmed in Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) and Halliday vs Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199. I suggest you heed this warning --------------------------------------------------- The requirements of the PoFA are a bit unclear to me and not sure if they've now closed that exit door or not The PCN screenshots are being attached now, with lots of redactions as I didn't want to expose my friend's data any more than required. (Note the bottom edge of these are around 7/8 ft, the driver is unlikely to of seen it when slowly navigating arouns in such close quarters) Entry Point Sign: Side Sign: Front Page: Rear Page Text (Text recognition used, apologies for any typos): --------------------------------------------- PAYMENT Payment can be made onllne at ww.ce-service.co.uk. by calling 0115 822 50 20 or by sending a cheque. lf sending a cheque. please attach the payment slip and return it with your payment. You should write your PCN number on the reverse of your cheque In order for the payment to be allocated correctly. We have photographic evidence of this incident. it Is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking charge in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the dn’ver. We therefore invite you to pay or appeal the unpaid parking charge; or if you were not the dn'ver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the dn'ver and to pass the notice to the driver. It you are a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking took place, please let us know and provide a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the agreement. If after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given, the amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full. and we still do not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver (and in the case of a vehicle hire company we have not received copies of the aforementioned documents). we will have the right to recover from you so much of that amount as remains unpaid. APPEALS This notice is issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You can appeal in wn'ting only (at wmmce-servicecouk or by post) within 28 days to the address below. You must include your PCN number on any correspondence and include all relevant supporting evidence to assist with your case. If your appeal to us is unsuccessful, we will send you the contact details for Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) who. i'f you wish, will determine your appeal independently. If you use the POPLA service. and your appeal is unsuccessful, the full Parking Charge will apply and you will no longer be able to pay at the reduced rate. Please be advised that POPLA will not consider appeals that have not been sent to us first. DATA The reasonable cause for obtaining your details from the DVLA was to enable the collection of unpaid charges. You may notify the Information Commissioner and/or the DVLA if you believe your data has been used inappropriately. CM‘l Enforcement Ltd. Company registered in England. office@ce—senn‘ce.co.uk Co Reg No: 05645677 Pn'vacy Policy at www.ce-service.co.uk/privacypolicy or email dataprotectionofficer@ce-service. co.uk. In order to enforce the parking contract and/or to protect legitimate interests, your personal data may be processed as follows: Shared with police or security organisations in order to detect or prevent crimes; Shared with third parties in order to collect any sums due; Shared with analytics organisations to understand vehicle and consumer behaviour and improve parking. You have the fight to make the following requests about personal data we may hold: To inform you how and why it is processed; To give you access to it; To rectify any incorrect information; To delete it; To restn'ct our use of it; To ask us to transfer a copy to a third party; To object to our use of it. Data protection law requires us to ven'fy your identity before providing information. respond to your request and tell you why, if we do not agree with it. --------------------------------------------- Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance everyone.(Ostell for the swift steer) This post has been edited by Pummy: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 22:26 |
|||
|
||||
Advertisement |
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 19:37
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 10:30
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
No Go find eral appeals Then you write it in Word / OpenOffice / LibreOffice etc, embed pictures WITHIN the document, in line with the text - not at the end - using figure 1, 2, 3 etc so you can reference it to yoru appeal text. THEN you save it as a PDF and UPLOAD it to the site Same as everyone does for POPLA. Thank you, apologies if this is covering old ground for everyone |
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 13:00
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
Crafted the response, I hope it’s up to scratch, but it’s almost 3Mb so linked it below until I can up the storage space on Pepipoo...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wi17znle61o4aom/P...201911.pdf?dl=0 I’ve copied in the text below so you can read it on here...... POPLA Ref: xxxxxx PCN: xxxxxx Reg: xxxxxx On 29th Sept 2019 Civil Enforcement Ltd issue a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their Automated Number Plate Recognition Systems. My appeal highlights the failure of Civil Enforcement Ltd to meet Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 CEL have no authority to issue tickets in this case. The highway upon which the alleged breach occurred is an adopted highway, as defined on the London Borough of Hounslow Website. A printout of the adopted road in question & approx location of the vehicle, is shown below... CEL have failed to follow the British Parking Associations of “relevant land” This is defined on their website under version 7, published on January 2018, Opening the document, the definition of relevant land is shown below... CEL have no authority to reclaim unpaid charges from the keeper of the vehicle The relevant section in POFA is paragraph 4, sub paragraph (1), is not met due to a failure in paragraph 5, sub paragraph 1, point (a), due to the highway falling outside of the definition of relevant land The PCN issues by CEL fails to meet POFA paragraph 7, sub paragraph 2, point (a), the notice fails to specify relevant land CEL signage specifies forbidding terms and make no offer of a contract to park Given no offer of contract is provided, no breach can take place CEL do not own the land on which the PCN was issued, therefore evidence they are authorised to operate on this land The British Parking Association Code Of Conduct requires they have written authorisation of the landowner, specifically points 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 that sets out the definition of land on which CEL may operate. This definition of land on which they can operate is requested to be presented at POPLA CEL have breached DPA rules for the use of CCTV to issue tickets The Data Protection Registrar has specific rules on the use of CCTV monitoring and video recording, specifically that the use of CCTV has to be notified to the Information Commissioner’s office. Given the land is NOT relevant, evidence of the notification of the notification to the ICO is required to demonstrate that their use of CCTV for the purposes of issuing tickets is lawful. Upon searching the ICO for “Civil Enforcement Ltd” the below results are shown for their entry on the Data Protection Registrar. I cannot confirm the evidence below reflect all of CEL’s DPR entries, this will be a matter for the ICO to advise if needed... CEL have breached the DVLA requirement to request driver details only under lawful purposes The DVLA provides registered keeper details if the requester has a reasonable cause... however given CEL have no authority to operate on an adopted highway, as per Section 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, this request for keeper information is an unreasonable request, therefore a breach of data protection |
|
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 23:11
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
POPLA appeal lodged, will keep you all appraised as to it’s progress, wish me luck!
|
|
|
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 - 22:39
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
So, CEL responded at POPLA and uploaded some documents... :-)
They've omitted to validate that this road is NOT an adopted highway, as you will see in the response I've copied below the document list Any inputs would be appreciated. Documents uploaded by CEL... 1. Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi (Respondent); ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67 On appeal from [2012] EWCA Civ 3852 Comm, [2013] EWCA Civ 1539 and [2015] EWCA Civ 402 URL: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...ess-summary.pdf 2. 3. Summary of my proposed response on POPLA: - I'll compress it but putting it all out there so I can trim it later - The operator has at no point sought to clarify the specific failures in the PoFA that were laid out in the appeal to POPLA. - The operator has not proven they have informed the ICO of their use of ANPR (the appeal to POPLA used the term "CCTV" as this was assumed to be the technology used to obtain the images in the PCN) with the specific details of why they are using it, for how long and that their intended use of this surveillance technology is lawful - The signage is forbidding and does NOT make a contractual offer to motorists not displaying a permit - The signage only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, therefore they are the only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed - The operator has not proven that they are authorised to issue tickets on an adopted highway - The list of vehicles that did obtain a permit, only proves which vehicles were used to transport the passengers in the vehicle, and they entered the building where the tablet to obtain a permit is available. - Stating that other drivers were able to park there and that the method to obtain a permit was working implies that any person who then wishes to park there should enter the facility in order to obtain a permit. This information is not shown on any signs provided. This contradicts the operator's assertion that other drivers simply drove up to the sign and read on the sign that a permit is available inside the facility. This is not an offer to enter into a contract at the site, as this relevant piece of information is withheld on the signs - CCTV and ANPR are interchangeable technologies used to identify vehicle licence plates for the purposes of enforcement. Regardless of the technology type used, the data is still held on Civil Enforcement's systems, and have been used to obtain data of a private individual. This has not been proven to be a lawful action or in compliance with all parts of the PoFA - The operator has failed to abide by the BPA's definition of relevant land - CEL have failed to prove the land owner has given them permission. -- The confirmation of authority shows a company name of Citicorp Limited with Company Number 10594690, which does not prove is the landowner of the site, only the company which has engaged CEL to undertake parking management. -- When looking on companies house, the company accounts filing shows £100 for net assets and cash, upto 28th Feb 2018 with the next filing deadline being the 30th Nov 2019 for the period upto Feb 2019. This company does not seem to be the landowner that should be providing authority to CEL given only £100 in it's net assets and cash figures to date URL: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10594690 The company directory for the alledged land owner is different to the name of the signatory on the confirmation of authority. Note that companies house shows only 1 active director for this company - The confirmation of authority states the enforcement policy that there is "No parking at anytime" which is contrary to the operator's assertion that other vehicles had obtained a valid permit to park. This is contradictory in the same appeal letter - The information on how to obtain a permit to park on the land is not visible on the signage, and was disclosed on this appeal only, not provided in advance or made public CEL'S RESPONSE TO POPLA APPEAL LETTER CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. “the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning”. 5. 6. 7. “Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.” 8. the Appellant to ensure that they could abide by any clearly displayed conditions. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - Our Charges 9. 10. “...the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.” A summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis has been included in the Operator’s evidence pack, but can also be accessed using the following link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...ess-summary.pdf 11. “Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets.” It would therefore be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre- estimation of loss. 12. 13. 14. 15. PICTURE OF SIGNAGE HAS BEEN INCLUDED HERE 16. working order on the date of violation. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. <ANPR CAPTURED IMAGES SHOWN HERE> <Listing of vehicles that logged into the tablet, inside the building which the road leads to, is shown here with dates, time, site, partially anonymised licence plate and source of the licence plate details> <Copy of PCN sent> <Copy of initial appeal> <Confirmation of Authority to undertake parking management, text is copied below...> Premises: Access Road at the rear of XXXXXX Land Controller: SOME COMPANY, SOME COMPANY NUMBER Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd Enforcement Policy: No Parking at anytime Text of Agreement... The Land controller authorise the operator to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the premises, to include the issue of Parking Charge Notices to vehicles on the premises, under contract law, trespass law or for the breach of any of the terms which the company displays on its signage at the premises. The operator is further authorised to pursue any outstanding Parking Charge Notices in accordance with the Code Of Practice of the Approved Operator Scheme of a DVLA Accredited Parking Association Signature / Name / 8th May 2019 END OF CEL RESPONSE TO POPLA This post has been edited by Pummy: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 - 23:20 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 07:48
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
So to remind us - the vehicle images were not captured inside a car park, but the vheiucle was parked ona road outside the car park?
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 14:22
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Now there's a thought!!
Actually debating whether any breach occurred rather than immersing in minutiae from post 1. OP, why you've embarked on this course I've no idea. Evidence has been posted that the PCN is baseless and therefore unlawful. So, forget POPLA, who cares? Let them take the matter to court. Bring it on. Why bother with intermediaries whose impartiality is questionable? |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 15:15
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
So to remind us - the vehicle images were not captured inside a car park, but the vheiucle was parked ona road outside the car park? Correct, the ANPR is setup along an access road to a block of flats. The car park next to the alleged breach just happens to be an Aldi car park Now there's a thought!! Actually debating whether any breach occurred rather than immersing in minutiae from post 1. OP, why you've embarked on this course I've no idea. Evidence has been posted that the PCN is baseless and therefore unlawful. So, forget POPLA, who cares? Let them take the matter to court. Bring it on. Why bother with intermediaries whose impartiality is questionable? Hi, I’ve reread the post several times and didn’t get the point (on the spectrum, sometimes I miss the underlying point being made or I could just be THAT dim in this matter) Please would you PM me the explanation if it’s not something to put onto a public forum? |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 16:30
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The point theyre making is to not bther with POPLA
I disagree with that, because POPLA should put this to bed and is a lot lower hassle than court ever would be! |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 16:38
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciate the steer, sometimes I really need it.
I will pursue via POPLA as their decision is binding on them, not on me. The point was always to secure the win at POPLA so CEL and bound by their decision, where my concern was raised is for the comments that I’m allowed to make in response to the evidence supplied by CEL on this appeal. Hcandersan’s comment led me to reconsider if the points I made should be changed as it takes the argument in another direction that may reduce my odds of a successful appeal. Happy to try and figure out an alternative angle of attack if that helps me increase my chances of success, my confidence was shaken a bit by the comment, that’s all. |
|
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 10:51
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You are where you are
You cannot change your POPLA appeal. Far too late Make your comments. Remember the person reviewing your appeal has around 20min MAX to review. Make your points DIRECT and STRONG, and do not beat around the bush. Strongest points at the top. |
|
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 22:32
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
Submitted the response below, will keep you all posted as to how I get on. Thanks for all the help so far...
The operator has not proven that they are authorised to issue tickets on an adopted highway CEL have failed to prove the land owner has given them permission. - The confirmation of authority shows a company name of Citicorp Limited with Company Number 10594690 URL: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10594690 - The Companies house listing shows this company has £100 in net assets and assets, which would make it impossible to be the owner of the land. - The name given on the document supplied DOES NOT match the only director of the company The operator has failed to abide by the BPA's definition of relevant land The signage is forbidding and does NOT make a contractual offer to motorists not displaying a permit The signage only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, therefore they are the only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed CCTV and ANPR are interchangeable technologies used to identify vehicle licence plates for the purposes of enforcement. Regardless of the technology type used, the data is still held on Civil Enforcement's systems, and have been used to obtain data of a private individual. This has not been proven to be a lawful action or in compliance with all parts of the PoFA The operator has not proven they have informed the ICO of their use of ANPR (the appeal to POPLA used the term "CCTV" as this was assumed to be the technology used to obtain the images in the PCN) with the specific details of why they are using it, for how long and that their intended use of this surveillance technology is lawful The operator has at no point sought to rebut the specific failures in the PoFA that were laid out in the appeal to POPLA. The list of vehicles supplied, only proves which vehicles were used to transport the passengers in the vehicle, and had privileged knowledge on how to enter the VRM in order to avoid CEL contacting them. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 01:01
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 20 Feb 2007 From: Hounslow Member No.: 10,745 |
Decision Successful
Great result, so now the actions I think I need are... 1) Get the thread moved to success stories? 2) Important part, understand why no mention of adopted land was mentioned in the decision or any proof that the company they got authority from owns the land, how can they if the company accounts show no assets? 3) Raise complaints to Council 4) Raise complaints to DVLA 5) Raise complaints to ICO 6) Raise complaints to Aldi 7) AOB? Details of the response are shown below Assessor summary of operator case The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case The appellant states that the operator is not authorised by the landowner to operate on site. She states that the site does not meet constitute “relevant land” under either the British Parking Association Code of Practice or the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. She states that signage on site detailed no specific terms for non-permit holders and no contract was therefore formed. She states that the operator did not adhere to relevant data protection regulations. She states that the operator obtained her details illegally from the DVLA. The appellant has provided a document elaborating on the above grounds in detail. Assessor supporting rational for decision The operator has provided a copy of a document entitled “CONFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY”, signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that it is authorised to operate on site. The document lists the “ENFORCEMENT POLICY” on site as “No parking at any time”. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”. The appellant has queried whether the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to manage parking on site. The operator has provided evidence to show that it is authorised by the landowner to operate on site, however it does not appear from the evidence that the terms being enforced by the operator are in line with its authorisation from the landowner. The landowner appears to have authorised the operator to prevent any parking whatsoever on site, whereas the operator is enforcing a permit-holders only policy. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site, or at least that the terms it is enforcing are in line with the authority it has. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 07:54
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
1) Nope, you start a new thread there, and link to this one!
2) They only have to find on one point, and they dont have to address every point you raise. Same as for a council ticket 3) - 6) yep! |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 08:00
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Nice result.....
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:59 |