PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Civil Enforcement LTD PCN, Received Keeper Liability
CP588
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 22 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,366



Hello!

New to this forum so apologies if anything is out of line. Would be so grateful if any of you fine folk can give me a hand.

Car was parked on a restaurant car park, which is a 1 hour maximum stay. It has been parked there before at a similar time and there has never been problem. Say around 8pm on a Sunday night. The car park was completely empty so didn't see any issue with parking but kept an eye on the car to see if anyone came along to give give out a ticket.

Returned to the car, and left. Maybe about 10/15 minutes over the hour but nobody came along to check so thought was fine.

Today I received the letter which I have attached to the post charging me £100. It says it has been over 30 days since the PCN was issued, but I have never had any correspondence from this company until the post arrived today. I've been to the car park this afternoon to check the signs, and it says they use ANPR which I have had to do some further reading into on this forum. But it is in no way as broadly advertised as the '1 hour max stay' signs.

Can someone please give me some advice on what to do next, and what I should put in an email/letter to them? Sending me a £100 bill for a PCN I haven't even received or been able to appeal feels like a bit of a sting.

Thanks

Attached Image


This post has been edited by CP588: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Advertisement
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
CP588
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:31
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 22 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,366



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (CP588 @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:49) *
Could you elaborate on the attempts to deceive the DVLA, BPA?

Not what I said........


Edited
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:33
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You need to read up on other threads, work from other POPLA appeals and the rewrite to suite your case, there are loads on here.

Here is one I did recently though, it included a Byelaws section (deleted)...... The PPC decided not to contest

In the matter of an Appeal against a Parking Charge Notice to POPLA
Name
Address
(Appellant)
And
XXXX Parking
PPC Address
(Respondent)
1.0 Alleged Infringement
The Respondent alleges that, on the 20/12/2013 the driver of the car (XXXX XXX) of which I am the registered keeper, remained in the XXXX Car Park without a ‘valid payment/permit’, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in signage in the car park and as such a Parking Charge of £85 is payable
2.0 Protection of Freedoms Act
2.1 The Parking Charge Notice was issued some 6 weeks after the parking event, no Notice to Driver had been placed on the vehicle, as such the Notice to Keeper was served outside the 14 days required for keeper liability using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
2.2 In the appeal rejection PPC NAME Parking clearly state “this notice is not issued under POFA 2012” although quite how a law becomes ‘guidelines’ is not explained.
2.3 As such there can be no keeper liability and PPC NAME must take the matter up with the driver not the registered keeper.
2.4 There are other failings in the PCN that would prohibit it from being a Notice to Keeper (NtK) in accordance with the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, however as PPC NAME Parking have conceded that the notice was not intended to be PoFA compliant I do not believe it is worth listing them all in this appeal. Should PPC NAME Parking in their response to this appeal claim that the PCN is indeed a PoFA compliant NtK I reserve the right to detail these additional failings in my reply to their response.
4.0 Landowner authority
The Respondent has not provided the appellant with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand any money from the driver. That is to say, that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park. Accordingly, the respondent should be required to provide a copy (to both POPLA and the Appellant) of its contract with the owner (or such contracts that show a link back to the landowner) of the land on which the car park is situated.
5.0 Signage
5.1 The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable.
5.2 Sum demanded being a core term, in Parking Eye v Beavis the Supreme Court decided that the sum demanded must be a core term, in that case the sum in question (£85) was displayed prominently in the centre of each sign in the largest font used on the sign. PPC NAMEs signs do not place the sum demanded as a core term in fact it’s very difficult to find out what the sum demanded will be, as such it cannot rely on Beavis to demand a penalty amount and must instead only be permitted to claim a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
6.0 The Appeal
My appeal is based on three grounds
6.1 Keeper (or owner) liability – That there is no keeper liability in this case and as such this appeal against a claim on the keeper must be upheld, and that if PPC NAME decide they are actually making a claim on the owner (using byelaws) that there is no owner liability either.
6.2 That there is no Landowner authority to PPC name to carry out the actions it is taking in terms of the sending of notices or their ability to undertake any legal action.
6.3 That the signage is wholly inadequate to create any liability on the driver in regards to any parking event, that at best any contravening of requirements was a trespass where action could only be taken by the landholder.


7.0 I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed


Signed XXXX

Date

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:45


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP588
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:51
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 22 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,366



Thank you so much!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP588
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:57
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 22 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,366



Does this read any better?

________________________

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:


1) A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This parking charge is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Civil Enforcement Ltd have failed to fulfill the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:

“The notice must be given by:
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”


The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

’’The relevant period is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The first correspondence I received from CEL was a Notice of Keeper Liability dated 19/8/19. The alleged event took place on 14/7/19. That is over a month between the event and CEL making any contact with the keeper.


2) Attempt to deceive.

After notifying CEL of the facts stated above, I received a letter stating the following:

“There is no legal requirement to send out the PCN within 14 days of the incident day as there is no reference to POFA on this ticket. Unfortunately your interpretation of the Act is incorrect.”

All correspondence I have received from Civil Enforcement Ltd has made reference to POFA. I asked CEL to clarify if this was a mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Their refusal to answer this question, and then their further backtracking on their alleged non-compliance with POFA in later letters leads me to believe this is a deliberate attempt to deceive and extort.


3) Signage.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

“18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. 18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

There was no contract between the driver and CEL. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. Had the driver been made aware that CEL would charge £60 if they stayed more than any allowed period of time the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the Parking area before that period expired. Any signage was either non-existent or inadequate.

4) No contract with landowner.

Civil Enforcement Ltd does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.

CEL has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

CEL must provide the POPLA adjudicator with documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier. Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant CEL the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between CEL and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

This post has been edited by CP588: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:04
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here