CEL - POPLA appeal

Coupon-mad

Re complaining to the DVLA:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/are-dvla-attempting-to-hide-number-of.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79059

meater

Recieved a reply from POPLA with CEL's evidence, starting to have second thoughts but hoping the points they have made are invalid?

In my very first soft appeal to the PPC I used 'a mitigating circumstances' as a reason (unfortunately before I found this hidden gem of a forum), simply because the driver was genuine vistor to the premises. They have included a copy of this soft appeal with their evidence, is this going to be a concern?

I'll write below some of the points they have arisen to POPLA.

Guessing most of this is just their standard reply.

This ticket was issued correctly as:

- We have authorisation from the Landowner (our client) to manage the car park and enforce PCN's (Even though they have not included a copy of the contract, but have provided a signed witness statement from landowner.)

- The amount sought is a contractual term that is calculated upon a pre estimate of loss.

- The PCN issued is fully compliant with the provisions of POFA; as the Registered Keeper has not named the driver within 28 of the PCN being issued they are liable for the PCN.

- There are many clear and visible signs advising drivers of the parking terms, the onus is on the driver to ensure they adhere to the stated parking terms.

"Due to the Data Protection Act we are unable to provide a copy of our contract with our client however, please find attached a signed Witness Statement authorising us to issue and enforce PCN's"

"Further the Appellant states we are not compliant in regards to paragraph 9 (2) (h) of schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 to identify the creditor. We absolutely refute this claim as it is very clear from the PCN that the creditor is Civil Enforcement Ltd to whom payment/notification may be made to."

"The Appellant states that at the time they entered the car park they were unable to see the signs in the car park, however the headlights of the vehicle would have provided sufficient illumination to make the signs readable."

We further submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the motorist.

The charge sought is a contractual term (which is calculated from a pre estimate of loss) which is within the recommended British Parking Association guidelines and is compliant with paragraph 19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore we have been given authorisation by the BPA to charge at this level.

Also, concluding that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; please be assured the charge is based upon a genuine pre estimate of loss calculated by some of the following factors not limited to but including:

- Fee payable to DVLA
- Administrative Expenses, arising after violation
- Stationary, postage etc, arising from a violation occurring
- Preparation and sending PCN's
- Commercial justification
- Loss from another vechicle parking
- Loss of Revenue of attached business/businesses
- Legal and/or Professional Advice
- Wages/ Salaries of staff involved, arising due to the violation

Coupon-mad

You will win now!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Indeed but I would respond To this statement.
Everyone is now trying this new gpeol statement, no figures given, just a broad range of possible costs. its not worth not challenging this.

The loss of revenue is of no concern to CEL and commercial justification is taken straight out of Parking Eyes books

Me thinks someone has been taking BPA coaching lessons on how try and win on gpeol. CP plus tried this and failed

Umkomaas

violation, violation, violation

3 of them. Love it! :cool:

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

does anyone else think this statement should be challanged

meater

Thanks for the replies, can forward the original e-mail reply if anyone wants to look at the whole picture but think most has been highlighted above.

One thing I wish I had done is taken more pictures of the signage on site, as since then they have been busy erecting more signs.

Anyways guessed that most of the points they bought up are porkies, just wanted to make sure!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No need but u need to refute their loss statement, they state about salaries etc, well these are incurred anyway regardless of whether anyone breaches these rules
https://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk

meater

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

No need but u need to refute their loss statement, they state about salaries etc, well these are incurred anyway regardless of whether anyone breaches these rules

That's what I thought. So do we follow-up and point this out to POPLA or should we just leave them to it?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No do A follow up