PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Civil Enforcement PCN (breach of maximum stay) - should I pay?, Threads merged
superstar.son
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 17:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



Hi all,

All photographs are enclosed here: https://imgur.com/a/9OEog3u

The driver at the time (not myself), arrived late one night at a 24hr Starbucks in Manchester, near the Trafford Centre. Apparently, they did not realise that this car park had a 90min limit. I received a PCN today from Civil Enforcement Ltd asking for £100 (reduced to £60) for an alleged overstay of the limit by 15 minutes.

The PCN does not include any photographs of my car during the alleged time that it was there.

The driver says that they did not see the signage, as it was dark, and there were no signs near where they had parked. I have enclosed a photo of the spot where they parked the car that night, and I agree that there are no signs visible from there stating that there is a 90 minute limit. The one sign that you can see from there is a disabled only sign.

However, there are many other signs throughout the car park, most damningly at the entrance itself. I have included these photographs in the link. There was also a sign inside at the counter of the Starbucks, clearly stating that there was a 90 min max. stay, which the driver apparently seemed to miss as well.

Most infuriatingly is the fact that the driver was eligible for a parking permit issued by Starbucks which would have extended their maximum stay by another 90 minutes. However, they didn't realise that they needed to do this at the time. The permit is issued electronically, by a barista inputting the reg number into a computer to inform the ANPR system that the car's time limit is increased. I have returned to the shop, where the staff told me that they couldn't assist me as they had nothing to do with the parking, that the PCN is issued by CE Ltd., and it is to them that the charge is owed. I asked whether they could retroactively issue a parking permit, seeing as the driver had qualified for one at the time, and they said no.

I should also note, the manager of the franchise has offered to appeal to CEL on my behalf to cancel the charge, although he says that this is very unlikely to succeed. He says that the parking limitations have been in place for 7 months now, and that for the first few months they were able to successfully appeal to CEL for cancellations of parking charges, but that this is unlikely to work now. What do you make of this - is it a good idea to try?

I do not want to pay this charge. I'm not sure what best to do. Should I ignore this notice? Should I appeal (and lose the discounted fee)? Or should I just pay it?

Any advice would be gratefully received

(edit: I should also note, the manager of the franchise has offered to appeal to CEL on my behalf to cancel the charge, although he says that this is very unlikely to succeed. He says that the parking limitations have been in place for 7 months now, and that for the first few months they were able to successfully appeal to CEL for cancellations of parking charges, but that this is unlikely to work now. What do you make of this - is it a good idea to try?)

This post has been edited by superstar.son: Sun, 26 May 2019 - 13:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 17:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 18:51
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Appeal it as the registered keeper on the grounds of poor signs
State that you weren't the driver

When it's rejected, you can make a second more detailed appeal to POPLA

If this fails, ignore all further correspondence except a Letter Before Claim

CEL has a very familiar letter chain that no reply from you will interrupt

Court claims are very common but very easy to defeat
They contain so many fake additional charges (that can't be recovered from you anyway) that CEL will cancel the claim rather than explain them to a judge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 21:30
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Also edit your post and remove anything that may identify who drove the vehicle.

It is always "the driver" did this or that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 22:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 25 May 2019 - 19:51) *
Appeal it as the registered keeper on the grounds of poor signs
State that you weren't the driver

When it's rejected, you can make a second more detailed appeal to POPLA

If this fails, ignore all further correspondence except a Letter Before Claim

CEL has a very familiar letter chain that no reply from you will interrupt

Court claims are very common but very easy to defeat
They contain so many fake additional charges (that can't be recovered from you anyway) that CEL will cancel the claim rather than explain them to a judge


Thank you for your reply.

I'm really quite inexperienced with this sort of thing. If I'm not the driver, how does that affect proceedings?

How likely is my appeal to succeed with POPLA? I have posted a layout of the signage in the imgur link - do you think it would be reasonable to make an appeal on these grounds? (there is also an additional sign inside the restaurant, at the counter, which I did not photograph. This sign clearly indicates a 90min limit. I think the driver failed to see this sign as they did not actually order from the counter, one of their companions at the time ordered for them).

If the POPLA appeal fails, and the case goes to a court, what do you make of my chances then? I'm really not sure about letting it get to that stage - it sounds like a lot of stress + time commitment. I'd only really want to go ahead with it if I knew I stood a very good chance. Otherwise, I wonder whether sucking it up and paying their reduced rate would be best.


QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sat, 25 May 2019 - 22:30) *
Also edit your post and remove anything that may identify who drove the vehicle.

It is always "the driver" did this or that.


Done, thank you for the heads up

This post has been edited by superstar.son: Sat, 25 May 2019 - 22:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 07:42
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You appeal on the grounds that the signs were few in number, high and the £100 charge is far from obvious
You also make clear that you weren't the driver

When you appeal to POPLA, you also challenge whether CEL has a contract with the Starbucks franchisor
It's a near certainty that it doesn't - CEL contracts are arranged by a "clean" parent company that sub-contracts the management

If it goes to court, your chances are as close to 100% as it gets
CEL will cancel because it won't want to explain its fake additional charges to a judge
It will find it more difficult than usual when it's always known that it can't recover them from you as the non-driving keeper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 08:26
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You also mention the hidden condition in the alleged contract in that the period of parking could be extended by application to the staff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 13:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 08:42) *
You appeal on the grounds that the signs were few in number, high and the £100 charge is far from obvious
You also make clear that you weren't the driver

When you appeal to POPLA, you also challenge whether CEL has a contract with the Starbucks franchisor
It's a near certainty that it doesn't - CEL contracts are arranged by a "clean" parent company that sub-contracts the management

If it goes to court, your chances are as close to 100% as it gets
CEL will cancel because it won't want to explain its fake additional charges to a judge
It will find it more difficult than usual when it's always known that it can't recover them from you as the non-driving keeper


Thank you very much for your advice.

What are the implications of the franchisor not having a contract with CEL? Does this mean they don't have the right to claim the sum that they are asking for?

Also, what do you make of the fact that the PCN letter did not include photographs of the car?

I should also note, the manager of the franchise has offered to appeal to CEL on my behalf to cancel the charge, although he says that this is very unlikely to succeed. He says that the parking limitations have been in place for 7 months now, and that for the first few months they were able to successfully appeal to CEL for cancellations of parking charges, but that this is unlikely to work now. What do you make of this - is it a good idea to try?

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 09:26) *
You also mention the hidden condition in the alleged contract in that the period of parking could be extended by application to the staff.


Is it a hidden condition though? It says it on each of the signs. It's just that the driver of the car happened not to see them on the night of the incident.

This post has been edited by superstar.son: Sun, 26 May 2019 - 13:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 14:46
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



Hi, I recently received a penalty notice from CEL for an alleged overstay of 15 minutes at a 90 minute max stay free car park. I made a thread about it here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128060

I have since appealed to CEL, which was (obviously) rejected. I am now at the stage of appealing to POPLA. I have submitted an appeal on the following grounds:
1. No Grace Period given
2. Hidden signage and not seen so no contract could be entered into or formed.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served

CEL have since responded by uploading their own evidence, which I have attached here (I have redacted all sensitive information)

I now have the opportunity to submit comments regarding their evidence, and would appreciate any advice on what I might say.

For instance, part of their evidence pack is a 'Confirmation of Authority' signed by the assistant manager of the Starbucks whose car park CEL are operating - would I be correct in insisting that this does NOT constitute evidence of landowner authority?

Any help would be gratefully received.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  95684399050_3_.pdf ( 1003.07K ) Number of downloads: 82
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 15:33
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Why have you started a new thread? The forum rules are 1 thread per case. Ask a mod to merge the threads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 05:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I've asked a Mod' to merge these for you.

I'll reply when they are merged as I can't be bothered to keep jump between two threads to get all the facts.

Read other threads for recent POPLA appeals (use the success forum to find winning ones) edit it to suite your situation and post for critique, that way YOU understand what your appeal is about.


--------------------
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
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 09:06
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



We're past the point of submittiungthe appeal, apparently teh OP did that. WE dont know exactly what they appealed

CEL have stated they use POFA but havent actually shown how your assertion is wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 16:49
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 06:25) *
I've asked a Mod' to merge these for you.

I'll reply when they are merged as I can't be bothered to keep jump between two threads to get all the facts.

Read other threads for recent POPLA appeals (use the success forum to find winning ones) edit it to suite your situation and post for critique, that way YOU understand what your appeal is about.


Thank you very much. I apologise for having made a new thread, as I was ignorant of the 'one thread per case' rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 17:01
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 10:06) *
We're past the point of submittiungthe appeal, apparently teh OP did that. WE dont know exactly what they appealed

CEL have stated they use POFA but havent actually shown how your assertion is wrong.


Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately I cannot seem to find on the POPLA website a copy of the appeal that I have submitted. I did, however, base it upon the following appeal submitted by a user who had successfully appealed a fine from the very same car park (althought I had to redact quite a lot of it, due to the character limits on the POPLA website. I now realise taht I should created a PDF and submitted it as evidence.) This appeal was allowed on the basis that CEL failed to provide evidence of landowner authority (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=127461&st=0&gopid=1487991&#entry1487991).

"(1)The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end and one at the start (of a minimum of 10 minutes each) Therefore two Grace Periods should be allowed amounting to 20 minutes altogether. The time parked at Starbucks over the 90 minutes allowed was 13 minutes 34 seconds therefore within the 20 minutes grace period. There was traffic build up on entering the small car park as the drive-through is on the same route as the car park and the exit and so vehicles are entering and leaving all at the same time. There is always a traffic jam. There is restricted width of the car park spaces causing difficulties. Hence the same on leaving the car park.

+see aerial map of car park and drive-through

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states:

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park .. to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

BPA (13.2) states “You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period.

BPA (18.5) states if a driver is parking with your permission they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you.BPA(13.4)does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered into) it is argued that the duration of visit in question is not an unreasonable grace period. The Operator on this occasion have displayed on their PCN the entry and exit times from the car park. They are not the ‘period of parking’ although the law requires the ‘period of parking’. Taking into account the travel time to a parking space and travelling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory grace period as outlined above.

2) If Civil Enforcement want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and they have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements set out in the Schedule (particularly paragraph 9) I have had no evidence the Operator has complied with the BPA requirements for the PCN issued so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. In cases with a keeper appellant yet no POFA keeper liability to rely upon POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person with the consent of the owner as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver is insured or the driver was entitled to drive the car. I can confirm that they were. I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence has been produced it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper. As the keeper of the vehicle it is my right not to name the driver yet still not be lawfully held liable if an Operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator because they cannot use POFA in this case to show that I have not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015 “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a keeper who is sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK 6061796103 v Parking Eye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. So I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3) Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Also since the incident signs have been increased following complaints. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms and Conditions as the signage is brand new. The car park was always timeless and no restrictions. The signage was not expected and is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from some parking spaces. The terms appear to be displayed inadequately in letters less than half an inch high. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs. As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, with Letter Height Visibility and perspective you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the Terms and Conditions. The signs are sporadically placed and obscured in some areas and hidden by large vehicles parked and passing through the drive through.. In the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for

transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing is transparent and expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible.

A letter height of less than half an inch showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a pole and in crowded small print is inadequate in an outdoor car park.

Where terms on a sign are not seen and not clearly marked with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to and cannot have 'breached' an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date at that time from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

The signs relating to 'Terms and Conditions' have to be read while travelling into the site so makes their placement completely unacceptable.

They are unremarkably not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility .

I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. The judgement was binding case law from the Appeal Court and supports my argument

This was a victory for the motorist and so where terms on a sign are not seen and the area not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. It is suggested that The Operator does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. I ask that The Operator be asked to provide proof they have the authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and keepers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

They must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. operator to strict proof of full compliance:

Not forgetting evidence of the various signatories are:

name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal document"


I also made the point that the signage was not well laid-out, and that a driver attendeing the car park and parking in some specific bays would not have had the opportunity to see any signage before entering the restaurant. I have attached the schematic of the car park which I also included in my POPLA appeal.

I am now at the stage where CEL have uploaded their evidence, which I have attached to one of my previous posts. I have the opportunity to submit comments on their evidence, and am just looking for advice as to what I might say. For example, page 11 of their evidence pack contains what they contend to be evidence of landowner authority - this is a document signed by a Starbucks manager authorising CEL to manage their car park. Am I correct to challenge this and say that it does not constitute landowner authority?

This post has been edited by superstar.son: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 17:11
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 19:48
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



I would greatly appreciate any help as soon as possible, as I only have a few days left to be able to comment.

Am I buggered now that CEL have produced a copy of a contract between themselves and Starbucks? Or can I contend that this is not sufficient proof of landowner authority?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 00:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I can't see anything on that authority to say who Mr Masefield is and his authority to sign the document, even if he is listed as Assistant Manager on LinkedIn

The document is dated December last year and doesn't say that CEL was still authorised in May

Pursue in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice is inadequate
It must, in my view, specifically say that CEL can take legal action in accordance with Para 7.2 of the CoP

It doesn't really matter if you lose at POPLA
CEL always shoots itself in the foot when it takes legal action by including lots of fake charges that it won't want to explain to a judge if the claim is defended
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 06:10
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So they have't contested their lack of PoFA compliance at all.

Its clearly a template response as it rebuts appeal points you haven't even made and fails to address the specifics of your point.

You SHOULD win on PoFA but it would have helped to keep that paragraph short and state clearly and concisely where they failed so you may have thrown that one away with a significant amount of unnecessary blurb and no facts. I'd rebut their position they have complied with the specific failings and you may rescue that one.

Why didn't you post it for critique before sending?

By the way you were lucky to get a POPLA code following your first 'non appeal', that letter was pretty much the worst you could have sent.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 06:48


--------------------
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
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 06:49
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Did you contest POFA compliance? Just say YES or NO. YOU know what you wrote, we didnt, and its not our fault you decided to not keep a copy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 08:46
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 07:10) *
So they have't contested their lack of PoFA compliance at all.

Its clearly a template response as it rebuts appeal points you haven't even made and fails to address the specifics of your point.

You SHOULD win on PoFA but it would have helped to keep that paragraph short and state clearly and concisely where they failed so you may have thrown that one away with a significant amount of unnecessary blurb and no facts. I'd rebut their position they have complied with the specific failings and you may rescue that one.

Why didn't you post it for critique before sending?

By the way you were lucky to get a POPLA code following your first 'non appeal', that letter was pretty much the worst you could have sent.


I based my appeal on this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1487991 , I guess I naively thought that since this user had won her appeal at the same car park under very similar conditions that I would be certain to win also by using a similar appeal.

You're correct, CEL did not contest the PoFA point. However, they served their notice within the 14 days, and I believe their NTK has all the correct wording on it. Are there any other points you think I could identify to prove PoFA noncompliance?




QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 07:49) *
Did you contest POFA compliance? Just say YES or NO. YOU know what you wrote, we didnt, and its not our fault you decided to not keep a copy.


Yes.

I used a paragraph resembling this one:
" If Civil Enforcement want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and they have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements set out in the Schedule (particularly paragraph 9) I have had no evidence the Operator has complied with the BPA requirements for the PCN issued so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. In cases with a keeper appellant yet no POFA keeper liability to rely upon POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person with the consent of the owner as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver is insured or the driver was entitled to drive the car. I can confirm that they were. I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence has been produced it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper. As the keeper of the vehicle it is my right not to name the driver yet still not be lawfully held liable if an Operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator because they cannot use POFA in this case to show that I have not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 08:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, but HOW had they not complied? Or did you knowingly make a false statement to POPLA?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superstar.son
post Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 08:53
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 May 2019
Member No.: 104,019



So far I have drafted the following (within the prohibitive 2000 character limit):

"This 'contract' does not comply with BPACoP 7.3 a-e. Neither does it comply with s44 of the Companies Act 2006 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44) In order to comply with this Act, 2 signatories from each company must sign the contract. In this case there is only 1 signature from 1 company. The signatories must be also authorised as defined by p3 of the Act. The position within the company of the single signatory of the contract has not been stated thus failing this requirement.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided at all. There is no proof that a contract actually exists between the two parties.
No proof has been given that the company mentioned on their alleged contract has landowner/landholder rights at the location stated in their PCN, that any contract exists between the landowner and CEL, and that any such purported contract has been executed in accordance with the Companies Act 2006.
No proof has been given that this 'contract' was valid at the time of the incident (May 2019), having been signed in Dec 2018.
I therefore contend that CEL have failed in their burden of proof as this 'contract' does not demosntrate any lawful authority.

CEL have provided no evidence that their unlit entrance sign is visible/legible in low-light conditions - because it is not. A reasonably attentive driver, having missed this sign, could then very easily drive onto the site, park in the highlghted bays, and enter the cafe, without being presented at any point with a clearly visible or legible sign indicating any parking limitatons on site.

CEL acknowledge that a minimum 10m grace period is owed to allow a driver to decide whether to enter the contract. BPACoP 30.2 also states that anothe grace period of minimum 10m 'TO LEAVE AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS ENDED' is owed. These are separate - one occurs before, and one after, any parking contract is executed. CEL have chosen to ignore this requirement set out by the BPA. "

This post has been edited by superstar.son: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 08:55
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:58
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