Naughty C CP.

fiftydd

Nearly every one of the threads is about PARKING EYE. Here'a new one. Civil Enforcement Ltd based in Liverpool.
I 'committed an offence' in December. No dates at this stage as I don't want to alert C E L. to my tactics. But suffice to say, these companies play on the ignorance of their customers, the motorist. I have been following various comments and advice both on this forum and on pepipoo. After a lot of research, I have discovered that these companies are driving holes straight through various laws and regulations that are there to protect the public from unscrupulous companies such as P PC's'. Some P PC's are members of the B P A but not all. Those that are can be appealed to an organisation known as POPLA as everyone on this subject is aware.
However, POPLA is not a legal organisation in the sense that it has been set up by government, instead it had been set up by B P A and their members. Which in effect means that anyone appealing is doing so to an organisation that has been set up by themselves to appeal against themselves. They have to show some resemblance of success against the P PC's or it becomes a farce.
I know that POPLA is supposed to be an independent adjudicator, but how can it be if it has been set up by the B P A and their members.
I have started the process of appeal against C E L, not because they say I have to jump through their hoops, but because if it should end up in court, I can prove that I have done everything by their regulations and they are the ones at fault.
First, the PCN issue date was 23 days later than the incident date.
As we know, the issue date should be the day after the incident date to comply with B P A's own 14 days rule, as it was posted through the Royal Mail system. The incident date and the issue date are clearly shown on the PCN.
Second, after trawling through a lot of legalese, it became obvious that several legal regulations and legislation were just blatantly ignored. Either that or they are ignorant of them. I suspect the former, as they would not be uneducated enough to set up a company without some form of legal input. Or would they?
The other possibility is that as all the P PC's involved are ignoring the same regulations and legislation, they are following the same (legal) advice from the B P A when setting up their companies.
After trawling through it all, I have put together a defence that points out the gaping holes in the legal side of their business when dealing with the public. This brings me to my third point.
The Response to Representation correspondence that I received from C E L contains a verification code to enable me to appeal to POPLA on line. On accessing POPLA's website I find that the verification code is INVALID. I immediately sent an email off to POPLA, saying that I had received an invalid code from C E L and that I could not respond until I received an authentic, usable code.
I then put a letter together for snail mail to C E L asking that they send me an authentic code that I can use. I have however, not told them that I have informed POPLA about the invalid code. It might put the fox among the hens. I did not send an email to C E L because, (1) I don't want them having my email address and (2) there is no email address on their correspondence to reply to and I am definitely not 'phoning them.
Now, this begs the question; have C E L sent that invalid code purposely to deliberately slow down my appeal? I would not put it past them.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Redx

did you use the popla code checker featured in the NEWBIES sticky thread ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

prankster posted recently about another PPC using a P on their codes making them invalid , dont know if CEL are trying this or not though

you do know that the BPA only represents some members and so popla only works in those cases ?

the IPC is another body with different appeals procedures, just for your info

these companies try every trick in the book and some are not even following POFA now so can only pursue the driver which seems to change the way they send out paperwork

dosnt suprise me or any other regulars as to the dirty tricks they do, and PE are not the only one doing it, we regularly get people on here complaining about Excel and VCS , Vinci , UKPC , UKCPS etc too

Coupon-mad

I know that POPLA is supposed to be an independent adjudicator, but how can it be if it has been set up by the B P A and their members.

Well it isn't biased the PPCs' way as such, because we win 100% of POPLA appeals so I hope you included the usual 2 winning points that will beat CEL easily (no GPEOL and no authority from landowner...contract required). Also if you never named the driver you should have stated you are not legally liable because CEL's tickets don't establish keeper liability under POFA 2012 (see next point below).

First, the PCN issue date was 23 days later than the incident date.
As we know, the issue date should be the day after the incident date to comply with B P A's own 14 days rule,

There is no such BPA rule. There is a rule in POFA2012 but CEL do not claim their tickets follow that law do they. CEL don't need to send their tickets by day 14 and I do cover this in the 'NEWBIES please read this first!' thread and I mention CEL specifically as one which doesn't use POFA2012.

The Response to Representation correspondence that I received from C E L contains a verification code to enable me to appeal to POPLA on line. On accessing POPLA's website I find that the verification code is INVALID. I immediately sent an email off to POPLA, saying that I had received an invalid code from C E L and that I could not respond until I received an authentic, usable code.

Might have been better to search the forum for 'invalid'.

It's not the code, it's your browser or it's the wrong POPLA page used (some people try to put their appeal in as 'evidence'). Time is running out. Why not do that search now and find out how others simply overcame it. And IF you have time (POPLA codes are time-bound, see the Newbies sticky thread) please do amend your POPLA appeal if needed, if some of it isn't quite ready to submit.

Do show us your draft if you want help as it sounds like you may have missed the point a bit (certainly the 14 days thing is wrong and easy for CEL to rebut).

fiftydd

First, the PCN issue date was 23 days later than the incident date.
As we know, the issue date should be the day after the incident date to comply with B P A's own 14 days rule,
There is no such BPA rule. There is a rule in POFA2012 but CEL do not claim their tickets follow that law do they. CEL don't need to send their tickets by day 14 and I do cover this in the 'NEWBIES please read this first!' thread and I mention CEL specifically as one which doesn't use POFA2012.


Quote:
The Response to Representation correspondence that I received from C E L contains a verification code to enable me to appeal to POPLA on line. On accessing POPLA's website I find that the verification code is INVALID. I immediately sent an email off to POPLA, saying that I had received an invalid code from C E L and that I could not respond until I received an authentic, usable code.
Might have been better to search the forum for 'invalid'.

It's not the code, it's your browser or it's the wrong POPLA page used (some people try to put their appeal in as 'evidence'). Time is running out. Why not do that search now and find out how others simply overcame it. And IF you have time (POPLA codes are time-bound, see the Newbies sticky thread) please do amend your POPLA appeal if needed, if some of it isn't quite ready to submit.

If you look at BPA's flow chart, you will see the 14 day rule is in that chart. Also, companies cannot decide which law is applicable to them and which is not. If they are in the business of parking facilities, which they are, ALL relevant law applies. They can't pick and choose to suite themselves.

Now that my appeal has been submitted, it is too late for the PPC, or BPA to arm themselves against it.
So here it is.

POPLA
Parking on private land appeals.
Verification code xxxxxxxxx ( Wrong code supplied by Civil Enforcement Ltd)
PCN number xxxxxxxxx
Date of Parking Incident xxxxxxxxxx
Date of Issue of PNC xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date of Appeal 10, January, 2014

Grounds of Appeal;-

A) Notice To The Keeper is out of time.

The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012
Schedule for Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges
Section 9 subsection 4 states;-
a) ‘The notice should be given by handing it to the Keeper or leaving it at a current address for Service for The Keeper within the relevant period.’
b) ‘Sending it by post to a current address for service to The Keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’
Subsection 5 states;-
‘The relevant period for the purpose of subsection (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.’

Therefore it should have been posted on the 4th of December 2013 to reach the current address of The Keeper by the 23rd of December 2013 in order to be complicit within the relevant 14 day period excluding weekends.

The actual Date of Issue was the 27th of December 2013 rendering the PNC well outside of the relevant period of 14 days from the 4th of December 2013.

The PCN has been issued by ‘Civil Enforcement Ltd’ on behalf of ‘starpark.co.uk’

‘The Administration of Justice Act 1970.’

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:
a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner, or occasion of their making or, any accompanying threat, or publicity are calculated to subject him or her, or family, or household to alarm, distress, or humiliation;
b) falsely represents in relation to the money claimed that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
c) falsely represents themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment
d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or –purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Section 40 of the act, relates to the red notification on the PCN, quote;

‘Failure to pay the amount due within 28 days of the issue date may result in Civil Enforcement Ltd forwarding your account to a debt collection agency and you may incur additional costs.’

C) ‘Contract Law.’

Contractual Law states that a Private Parking Company cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their parking limit. This can lead to contractual penalties which have been dealt with in the following cases;

A precedent was set in 1915;

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today.

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach, i. e. if it is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’.
ii) If a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty.

In the case of the Ford Motor Co v Armstrong (1915) the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was therefore a penalty and was unenforceable.

PPC’s are large companies with significant better resources than their consumers. For damages to be justifiable and enforceable they must be a reflection of actual loss

D) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

When PPC’s charge £50 - £100 for what is a minimal loss on their part, these regulations will apply.

Section 5
Subsection (1) ‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be
regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance to the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer’.
(2) ‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually
negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has
therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’
These regulations shall apply to the contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated contract.

The enclosed photographs clearly indicates that it is a pre formulated contract and does not demonstrate that the consumer is entering into a contract when they use the parking facilities

In their response to and rejection of my appeal, Civil Enforcement Ltd furnished me with an incorrect verification code with which to lodge an appeal with POPLA. They also omitted a POPLA appeal form.
This sums up the whole attitude of the way in which Civil Enforcement Ltd conduct their business.

Conclusion
It is clear that Civil Enforcement Ltd have not adhered to:
The BPA code of practice; (Notice to the keeper is out of time.)
The Protection of Freedom Act (2012); (Notice to the keeper is out of time.)
The Administration of Justice Act 1970; (Falsely represents themselves to enforce a claim.)
Contractual Law; (There is no indication on the signage that a contract is being entered into.) (Cannot charge extortionate and in proportionate rates.)
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). (A minimal loss to the PPC and pre formulated contract).

Also, when I went online this morning, I re-tried the code and discovered that it worked. This means that POPLA shut down their online submissions over the weekend, further compounding the situation. Which also means that appeals will be backing up. Lovely.

Hot_Bring

Personally, I think your appeal is far too wordy and complicated. No specific mention of GPEOL means you risk losing.

Coupon-mad

Oh dear, that will very likely lose - and you are wrong to say

'If you look at BPA's flow chart, you will see the 14 day rule is in that chart. Also, companies cannot decide which law is applicable to them and which is not. If they are in the business of parking facilities, which they are, ALL relevant law applies. They can't pick and choose to suite themselves.

Now that my appeal has been submitted, it is too late for the PPC, or BPA to arm themselves against it.'

It is not too late because your appeal doesn't YET have winning points.

POFA 2012 = doesn't apply to this ticket, I already said that. CEL will say that too, 'case dismissed'.
BPA CoP = is not the law. POPLA will not find against a PPC based merely on a BPA CoP flowchart date issue.

Please, please read 'How to win at POPLA' in the 'Newbies please read this first' sticky thread. Read an example CEL POPLA appeal linked there. Notice the words 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' and 'CEL are not the landowner so I require their contract..blah'.

Add those winning words, suitably stated, this week by email to POPLA if you want to win this. Make it clear it is additional evidence for POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx that was omitted in error. Sorry but you have got POFA in your head when the ticket doesn't even mention POFA. And you have got the BPA CoP in your head as if it's law. It's not. I have an email from the Lead Adjudicator confirming POPLA will not necessarily be able to uphold an appeal based on a mere BPA CoP issue (although they may refer the issue to the BPA for the future). This will not help you then, and neither will the contract law/unfair penalty quotes, as you have nothing to back it up in terms of anything tangible POPLA can use.

Your appeal doesn't help you. No-one needs to arm themselves against what you've said; sadly so far it's all easily rebutted by CEL.

nigelbb

I am sorry to contradict C-M for the second time today but just because a PPC doesn't explicitly state POFA on their tickets doesn't mean that you should ignore non-compliance with the POFA 14-day rule. If a ticket is delivered outwith the 14 days and addressed to the keeper then the obvious response is that the keeper is not responsible for the charge & that the PPC should contact the driver. If the PPC persists with their claim against the keeper then the keeper's appeal to POPLA that the charge is null & void as the PPC is pursuing the wrong person is an absolute winner. Whether signage is adequate may be subjective. The fact that the PPC has not met the requirements of POFA 2012 to enforce keeper liability is not.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

I am sorry to contradict C-M for the second time today but just because a PPC doesn't explicitly state POFA on their tickets doesn't mean that you should ignore non-compliance with the POFA 14-day rule. If a ticket is delivered outwith the 14 days and addressed to the keeper then the obvious response is that the keeper is not responsible for the charge & that the PPC should contact the driver. If the PPC persists with their claim against the keeper then the keeper's appeal to POPLA that the charge is null & void as the PPC is pursuing the wrong person is an absolute winner. Whether signage is adequate may be subjective. The fact that the PPC has not met the requirements of POFA 2012 to enforce keeper liability is not.

I agree - I don't think I worded it very well!