Civil Enforcement Ltd - can they pursue RK?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I'll tell you what I did, I did it online as you get feedback on its acceptance. I kept the appeal as a document rather than paying it into the web form. I ticked a few boxes then in the form I put: appeal as attached document xyz. You submit it and panic as it doesn't ask for attachments. You then use submit evidence to upload your appeal document and your evidence. Note the 1mb limit which you can hit for high quality colour scans and photographs, and there is a limit of 7 attachments, though that appears to be a technical limit, you can sub it evidence in multiple sessions.

Then relax or start firing complaints letters in all directions (which is my idea of relaxation- I'm very relaxed at the moment!

Oh, and it wouldn't accept the POPLA code on Chrome, I dusted off my old unreliable Internet Explorer and ignored lots of invalid page security warnings.

Coupon-mad

Frannybobs wrote: »

Still scouring for NTK non-POFA compliance letter templates, found this that Coupon-Mad wrote for someone this week for someone from CEL with the exact same format PCN as I had, and will use that paragraph....many many thanks.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4895330

Now - what's the best way to submit the appeal - by post or online? Do you get a confirmation of receipt if you do it online? When we appealed to CEL we sent it recorded...

Thanks all for your help - there's a lot of new information to take in very quickly - it's a steep learning curve, and your directions and advice really helped. I will of course advise when we get a decision.

Hopefully you can see now I quoted paragraph 9, how much is missing from that 'PCN'?! By the way you can use the whole appeal if you like, just adapt it to suit because it has specific bits about the clock & contravention time/grace period.

bod1467 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't POFA state that certain wording must be included exactly as it is written in POFA 2012?

If a law says a document 'must' then it 'must' contain the words, yes.

bod1467

Thanks - I thought so. Which should make verifying POFA compliance very easy.

Coupon-mad

It is very easy IMHO - but then again on pepipoo I do get a fair bit of practice when we pick out the missing word in the small print on the back of a real PCN that - on the face of it - looks kosher!

So spotting the enormous amount of complete omission of whole sentences of statutory words on a CEL NTK is as simple as you get.

Frannybobs

Well, it looks like they might be starting to fight back. They have submitted 19 pages of evidence and even stated on the 1st page that the letter was clearly a stencil downloaded from the internet! Are they getting wise to the fight against them and getting smart - are POPLA starting to uphold these PCNs? Looks like we've timed it badly for our appeal if they are.

I've uploaded the letter part (the rest is copies of PCN, letters and their photos, and a letter from the landowner saying they have right to manage parking there) as pics...

Page 1: http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o783/Frannybobs/CELEvidence1_zpscb8117ee.jpg

Page 2:
http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o783/Frannybobs/CELEvidence2_zps927502b3.jpg

Page 3:
http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o783/Frannybobs/CELEvidence3_zps9c32ef86.jpg

Page 4:
http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o783/Frannybobs/CELEvidence4_zps0f498f89.jpg

Page 5:
http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o783/Frannybobs/CELEvidence5_zpsd53a9f63.jpg

Not sure if this is normal or not, but wanted to let you know in case they are changing their defences...

Not feeling as hopeful as I was!

Hot_Bring

Sit tight - point 3 WILL win it for you.

The fact that CEL have presented 19 pages shows how desperate these scammers are now getting when it comes to POPLA.

bazster

19 pages of pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Part of their tactics is to intimidate by sheer volume of irrelevant tripe.

Did they include a photo of the sign that reads "To deter abuse, there is a charge for breaching the conditions of £100...".

This sign: http://s1343.photobucket.com/user/Frannybobs/media/129bc86a-1c97-40e2-90d9-9e2174e36a69_zps63b7edc0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=8

If they did include a 'photo of that sign then they have destroyed their own case. If they didn't include it, make sure you send the photo to PoPLA before the appeal is decided.

Frannybobs

bazster wrote: »

19 pages of pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Part of their tactics is to intimidate by sheer volume of irrelevant tripe.

Did they include a photo of the sign that reads "To deter abuse, there is a charge for breaching the conditions of £100...".

This sign: http://s1343.photobucket.com/user/Frannybobs/media/129bc86a-1c97-40e2-90d9-9e2174e36a69_zps63b7edc0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=8

If they did include a 'photo of that sign then they have destroyed their own case. If they didn't include it, make sure you send the photo to PoPLA before the appeal is decided.

yes they did include a photo of that sign with that wording - interesting - why would that destroy their case?

Hot_Bring

Frannybobs wrote: »

yes they did include a photo of that sign with that wording - interesting - why would that destroy their case?

It highlights the charge as a penalty and thus unlawful and not a GPEOL.

GabbaGabbaHey

I'm a bit bemused by their mention of the Data Protection Act as the reason why they cannot provide details of the contract between them and the landlord.

To the best of my knowledge, the DPA is purely concerned with the protection of information explicitely relating to living individuals and has nothing whatsoever to do with commercial confidentiality.

It sounds as if the letter was drafted by somebody who doesn't really know what they are talking about.