PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd for, literally, 3 mins time difference - ** SUCCESS!!*

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

Whilst I admire your thoroughness CM, I cannot but think that you are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Had the OP employed a solicitor to write such a letter, it would have cost him/her hundreds of pounds, and for what, a half a day's pay.

There seems to be a desperateness about your approach, a win at all costs attitude.

Should we not be encouraging single issue appeals, or one or two of the others, I would suggest clock reliability or non compliance in this case, we all know that the adjudicator will go for losses, so why not force them to address other aspects of the weakness of the claimant's case?.

I have to ask, what is the purpose of this board? Is , is it to score easy wins, or is it to undermine the entire Industry.

If the OP is up for it, I suggest that he/she challenges non-compliance. Afeter their recent drubbing in court the knuckle draggers are hardly likely to want to face a judge in the near future.

People who get these fake invoices generally fall into 4 categories :

1. They just pay
2. They just ignore
3. They want to get their own invoice cancelled
4. They want to get their own invoice cancelled and then feel compelled to fight the PPC model so stay around.

I'd suggest that the way C-M assists those in group 3 is the best way to both assist them and have a great chance of moving them into group 4 at a later date.

Leave group 4 to do the single issue appeals and taking the fight directly to the PPCs.

The_Deep

Thank you all.

As a landlord, my main interest in coming to this board is to try to prevent occupiers from being harassed when properly parked in their own spaces.

However, none of my properties is in blocks patrolled by PPCs so I cannot deliberately collect tickets myself, although I can assure people I would be very much up for it. Would that make me a member of a fifth group?

There used to be cases where occupiers were clamped in their own spaces, and many of them took the clampers to court and won. Unfortunately many never got a penny back, but now, post POFA, I suspect that most PPCs would be less cavalier regarding CCJs.

Landlords, especially owner occupiers who own a share of their freehold, have far more incentive to face up to these companies in court than over stayers, but they will never get to court if they allege unproven losses, win at Popla, and take an early bath. They need to attack contracts, kick backs to management agents, loss of quiet enjoyment, trespass, etc.

These things are far more serious than a ten minute overstay in a free car park, and I feel that those ticketed in their own spaces should be given far more encouragement to fight back.

The_Deep

Getting back on topic, I recently used a council P&D car park where the time on the machine was three minutes faster than that of my watch.

When I got home I checked and my watch was showing the correct time.

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

Whilst I admire your thoroughness CM, I cannot but think that you are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Had the OP employed a solicitor to write such a letter, it would have cost him/her hundreds of pounds, and for what, a half a day's pay.

There seems to be a desperateness about your approach, a win at all costs attitude.

Nowt wrong with that approach IMHO! And sometimes I am happy to write a POPLA appeal, it keeps my hand in and I enjoy knowing it will win.

Having said that, I know where you are coming from about sometimes trying a different approach rather than the generic GPEOL. The other day I wrote someone a POPLA appeal based purely on the Equality Act which I knew might well not win but I wanted to try again and their case was so strong (and not a litigious PPC either). I have already tried such a POPLA appeal once - the appellant was up for trying it - and it was refused and is the subject of a complaint to POPLA right now.

But...as far as the one the other day goes...after writing their EA based POPLA appeal I also said 'try complaining to the Hospital' - and they did and it was cancelled! So I wasted my time there but I have the detail EA appeal draft stored for posterity and future copy/pasting. That's what I tend to do and that's what I will also do with this one here.

I wrote that last night as my team just got knocked out of the FA Cup on telly and I needed summat to focus on!

4consumerrights

The_Deep wrote: »

Whilst I admire your thoroughness CM, I cannot but think that you are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Had the OP employed a solicitor to write such a letter, it would have cost him/her hundreds of pounds, and for what, a half a day's pay.

There seems to be a desperateness about your approach, a win at all costs attitude.

I have to ask, what is the purpose of this board? Is , is it to score easy wins, or is it to undermine the entire Industry.

I don't think the appeal showed a

desperateness about your approach, a win at all costs attitude.

Newbies come to the board seeking assistance - it would be wrong IMO to use them as guinea pigs for single point appeals - they are only concerned with getting the charge cancelled - which also goes against the ethos of the MSE site.

The PPCs have had tutorials via the BPA in POPLA appeals (see their website) the motorists just get forum help.

As Hotbring says there are experienced members who are willing to challenge single point appeals - it is better to leave it to them.

The_Deep wrote: »

Landlords, especially owner occupiers who own a share of their freehold, have far more incentive to face up to these companies in court than over stayers, but they will never get to court if they allege unproven losses, win at Popla, and take an early bath. They need to attack contracts, kick backs to management agents, loss of quiet enjoyment, trespass, etc.

These things are far more serious than a ten minute overstay in a free car park, and I feel that those ticketed in their own spaces should be given far more encouragement to fight back.

I totally agree with that sentiment that those ticketed in their own spaces are given more encouragement and have helped several off forum suggesting they exclude themselves from any such scheme with suitable letters such as that CM wrote - with a view of taking companies to court.

However, there are even some who just want a quiet life and comply.

LearnerMoneySaver

Hi
just wondering if someone got email address of Civil enforcement where you can send email for appeal/correspondence. thanks

Nodding_Donkey

You'll get more help if you post your own thread after reading https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Most questions are answered in that thread.

boxingbantz

We have another success!!

xxxxxx (Appellant)

-v-

Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &

Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)









The Operator issued parking charge notice number 9026886549 arising

out of the presence at Rear of 1 – 14 T Parade, on 9 February 2014, of a

vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxxx





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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded



















Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination



The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxarising out of

the presence at Rear of 1 – 14 T Parade, on 9 February 2014, of a vehicle with

registration mark xxxxxx. The Operator recorded that payment was not

made in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the

signage.



The Appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them

all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.



The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages; rather

it is a ‘Contractual Obligation’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need

not reflect the loss caused by the breach. Then the Operator goes on to

submit a calculation of genuine pre-estimate of loss for if the charge if found

to be for damages.



I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for

damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for

parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be

consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here

permission to park beyond the maximum permitted stay. In other words, the

sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay, provided he

or she pays the charge. In this case, the wording of the sign states,



“if you exceed the maximum parking allowance” a parking charge notice of

£100 will be issued.



Clearly, permission to park for longer than permitted is not granted, and so

the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the

charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine

pre-estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.



I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to

park in return for the parking charge, and so it cannot be consideration.



The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum does, in any case,

represent a genuine pre-estimate of its costs. The Operator has produced a

list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not

shown to be losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.



1410494511 2 04 April 2014





















Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s

submission that the parking charge is unenforceable, as it is not a genuine

pre-estimate of loss.

Thanks to all who helped me with this and especially coupon-mad.

It seems the appeal didn't even get to the '3 minute difference' point at all - they lost on the GEOL (I think the abbreviation). I didn't actually understand what the assessor meant to honest - maybe someone could shed some light in laymans terms?


Thanks again!

Guys_Dad

Well done to you both. Interesting reasons for success, not just GPEOL.

A rare win on signage wording.