Help! PCN From Civil Enforcement Ltd For Using Bookmakers?!

alexrtaylor

Thanks! Bloody hell I'd be lost if I hadn't came on here

Coupon-mad

We do this every day to stop people being scammed by this fake PCN rubbish! So we do know what we are doing with our advice - and the PPCs hate us!!

alexrtaylor

Hi there, I've had a reply letter to say it has been rejected. I've been given a POPLA code, what should I state to POPLA?

Many Thanks

Redx

alexrtaylor wrote: »

Hi there, I've had a reply letter to say it has been rejected. I've been given a POPLA code, what should I state to POPLA?

Many Thanks

as already mentioned, read the NEWBIES - READ THIS FIRST sticky thread at the top of this forum, plenty of links to examples in there, which you should have been doing ever since you sent in the soft appeal as it was obvious they would reject it

make sure you submit your popla appeal well inside the 28 days from the date code of your verification number , this is paramount as you dont get a second chance - so do not waste this popla chance to win

post your popla draft here for checking when its been drafted, minus any personal info of course (use notepad for this on your pc)

Coupon-mad

alexrtaylor wrote: »

Hi there, I've had a reply letter to say it has been rejected. I've been given a POPLA code, what should I state to POPLA?

Many Thanks

Please show us your draft POPLA appeal after you've adapted one in the 'How to win at POPLA' link in the Newbies sticky thread. Easily done. Nearly 'scam over'!

alexrtaylor

On -/-/2013 the vehicle **** *** was parked at Marton Shopping Centre, Stokesley Road, Marton, Middlesbrough, TS7 8DY.
A letter dated -/-/2013 has been received, and a parking charge notice has been issued for the vehicle’s stay on the car park at Marton Shopping Centre, while shopping/retail facilities were used. The parking charge notice states that it had exceeded the 2 hour time limit allowed for parking there.
The Registered Keeper denies liability for the charge on the following grounds:
• The Charge is not a pre-estimated or accounted loss that has been caused and is penalty contrary to English case law.
• The Person using the vehicle was a genuine customer of the premises (proof provided).
•The charge fails to mention or prove authority under which the parking company act in a capacity to offer consideration on the contract they claim.
• The driver ONLY stayed within the shopping complex and ONLY visited the shops on that shopping park.
Enclosed is a copy of a bank statement with transactions on from that day to show use of the shop services, and proof will be obtained from the store. The bank statement validates the argument that the driver was using the services there (within the ‘Ladbrokes’ store), and that was the only reason for parking (the bank transaction states -/-/2013 – however it usually takes 24 hours for transactions be completed, and this can be verified with ‘Ladbrokes’ if necessary – which it has been with the retail manager).
In light of the above, it is clear that The Registered Keeper should not be held liable for the vehicular parking charge and it is requested that the parking charge notice is cancelled accordingly.
The punishment does not fit the “crime”, and the fees incurred are excessive and punitive in nature.

Does that fit or do I need to go into more depth?

Redx

compare it to this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

yours is not listed as numbered bullet points with larger explanations lower down , like the example

so rework yours and ensure you have no gpeol , no contract and signage all included

alexrtaylor

Okay thanks, will give it a go

Coupon-mad

Here's one someone made earlier:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63291442#Comment_63291442

That was v Civil Enforcement too, pretty much the same but you'll have to read every word to change anything not right (such as your charge being £100) and the dates/details differing. Make sure it has the same information as that one (even the unclear signage point, but you'd have to remove the 'under new management' assertion of course.

alexrtaylor

Should I keep in the 'Under New Management' part? As the last time a few years ago when I parked at the site, I am sure that it was not controlled by the PPC, and I'm pretty certain I heard that the company had came in recently as the shops were complaining about people leaving their cars in the car park all day while going into the town centre (not using their services).

As I'm not 100% sure about this, would it be best off to just leave this section out?