Is this unusual for a POPLA defence from CEL

davemorton

I went off my POPLA appeal letter, and have had an email back from POPLA containing a scan of CEL's response to my appeal.

In response to my point of it not being a reasonable PEOL they have said.....

'parking was £1 per hour or £3 for 24 hours providing payment is made within 10 minutes of arrival and £100 for any vehicle that fails to make payment within 10 minutes. As the charge is simply the price paid for parking, it is a core term, and need not satisfy any requirements for reasonableness. '

Is this normal? They have also rebutted all of my other appeal points, I would post the letter, but is in PDF format so not sure how to.
Many thanks for taking the time to read.

Nodding_Donkey

Show us the PCN (suitably redacted).

davemorton

Hoping this works and does not stretch the page too much.

Coupon-mad

Have you appealed only as the keeper, never saying who was driving? If so you can say there is no keeper liability as the NTK doesn't comply with the wording needed, as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

Secondly can we see the sign and the rejection letter? Bound to be something about 'failure to comply' in there.

Also you can argue against a £100 sum in these circumstances as being wholly unrelated to the actual parking tariff (£1) and clearly predominantly a deterrent and not a genuine fee to be allowed to park, etc.

davemorton

Have managed to print then scan their reply to my appeal to POPLA.

hoohoo

post their signage pic too please

davemorton

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you appealed only as the keeper, never saying who was driving? If so you can say there is no keeper liability as the NTK doesn't comply with the wording needed, as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

Secondly can we see the sign and the rejection letter? Bound to be something about 'failure to comply' in there.

Also you can argue against a £100 sum in these circumstances as being wholly unrelated to the actual parking tariff (£1) and clearly predominantly a deterrent and not a genuine fee to be allowed to park, etc.

Yes, appealed only as the keeper.






There is also a large sign on entry to the car park that soes say in the small print ''if you do not pay within 10 minutes of arrival in the car park, you agree to pay £100 to Civil Enforcement Ltd. To settle this charge at a reduced rate call ******** before leaving this site "

Coupon-mad

Page 2 says 'if you park in breach'!! And clearly the obligation is to pay within 10 minutes, so not doing so is indeed a breach, and the £100 a penalty, certainly not a contractual fee to be allowed to do so.

On that sign the only clear info is £1 or £3 as a tariff, so point that out to POPLA too.

And was you say you appealed as keeper you must add the fact the NTK is not compliant. Compare it to schedule 4 paragraph 9 (it's linked in the NEWBIES thread).

davemorton

Many thanks, so I gather I can send this information as additional evidence even though my POPLA appeal has already been submitted?

I cant post images that they used of their signs, as printer has given up its last few drops of ink, sorry.

Coupon-mad

Yes you email and put in the subject line something like 'Urgent - additional evidence for POPLA appeal due to be decided soon - verification code xxxxxxxxxx'

Then just say you've seen CEL's so-called evidence and have noted the following which is purely to rebut the information they have given:

{then bullet points}

Dee140157

You are in fact responding to their evidence so yes you can add the points that c-m has made.