Civil Enforcement LTD PCN POFA

rr755507

Hi,

I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement LTD, image below. I've already soft appealed and starting the POPLA appeal.

One question, after reading the verbiage at the bottom of their PCN I cannot work out if they are applying POFA and keepers liability? (lots of 'may' in there.)

http://s7.postimg.org/fl1fzvb2j/pcn.jpg

Coupon-mad

CEL don't apply POFA 2012 nor establish any 'keeper liability' nowadays, which makes it nice and easy for you to argue if you've appealed only as the keeper!

I would say the words 'we may have the right to recover from the registered keeper' are wholly misleading and I would include it in your POPLA appeal and also report them to the BPA and DVLA for misleading wording on a non-POFA ticket. Email addies for the BPA/DVLA are in the ''Newbies read this first'' thread, along with a link 'How to win at POPLA' which I hope you have seen?

Do show us your draft POPLA appeal so we can help if you need it. You'll beat them on 'no GPEOL' anyway!

rr755507

Thanks Coupon-mad (and everyone else here).

Results from my Popla appeal below.

--
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 3 November 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
registration mark X for exceeding the maximum parking allowance.

The Operator’s case is that the site is “2 Hours Maximum Stay Customers car
park” as clearly stated on the signage. The Operator says that the terms and
conditions are clearly displayed on numerous parking signs placed at the
entrance, exit and throughout the site. The Operator says that the Appellant’s
vehicle remained at the site for 31 minutes longer than the permitted stay.

They have produced copies of the parking charge notice, excerpt of their
database and the signage.

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice
of rejection they sent because they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by exceeding the maximum parking allowance.
The burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of
costs incurred in managing the parking site, I find that this is a general list of
costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s
breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

I find that the costs supplied by the Operator were not incurred as a direct
result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of
whether the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site.
I am therefore not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount for
the parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

Redx

excellent news

please copy it into here for posterity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337