Is this unusual for a POPLA defence from CEL

davemorton

Many thanks, I will get drafting that tomorrow :beer:

bazster

The NtK says "Payment not made in accordance with terms on signage"

Hot_Bring

If they really want to suggest the £100 is a parking fee then they need to show the VAT on the 'invoice' they've sent you. Follow all the advice you've been given though.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

The NtK says "Payment not made in accordance with terms on signage"

Yep they are trying hard to make it look like a contractual sum but failing miserably!

davemorton

Okay, I have put together an email, and wonder if people could look over it for me please, especially the Schedule 4 paragraph 9 part, as if im being honest, I really don't understand that part, do I need all of that in, or just a certain part of it?
Many thanks :beer:

Urgent - additional evidence for POPLA appeal due to be decided soon - verification code xxxxxxxxxx'

I have just received a copy of the evidence submitted by Civil Enforcement Ltd. and have noted the following:

1) Page 2 of their evidence 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.

2) The Notice to Keeper states 'Payment not made in accordance with terms on signage', again, a penalty, and not a contractual fee.

3) On their signage the only clear info is £1 or £3 as a tariff, thus signage does not comply with ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract.

4) No Keeper liability - the NTK is not compliant with the requirements of POFA2012

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012, Schedule 4 due to these omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.''

Where paragraph 9 requires certain wording, it is omitted - except a small amended sentence on the payment slip (which has been found in Council PATAS appeals, not to count as the 'PCN' because it is a separate section, designed to be removed).
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' As the Notice was not compliant with the Act due to the many omissions of statutory wording, it was not properly given and so there is no keeper liability.
Many thanks
Davemorton

davemorton

Just reading again their letter to POPLA, CEL are stating that they comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 as THEY are the creditors. Does that throw my argument out for that point, or not?

Guys_Dad

davemorton wrote: »

Just reading again their letter to POPLA, CEL are stating that they comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 as THEY are the creditors. Does that throw my argument out for that point, or not?

No. They need to prove that.