Civil enforcement ltd strikes again

Coupon-mad

Ahem, you are still asking it you should write about what happened. NO! It seems you still haven't simply looked at 'How to win at POPLA' in the Newbies thread? As we've already said, you simply use the CEL POPLA example and change the wording about signage or other details as appropriate. You could have sent it by now.

samabbey4

Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 28,642
Thanked 38,475 Times in 16,597 Posts

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers
3. No Keeper liability - the NTK is not compliant with the requirements of POFA2012
4. Signage incapable of being read in the dark - no contract with driver
5. No grace period given despite signage and BPA CoP
6. ANPR clock/synchronisation/reliability/data handling/ICO rules on ANPR signs
7. Unreasonable & Unfair Charge - a penalty that cannot be recovered


1. The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner. I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. The Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event by a driver who was fully authorised to be parked at that site.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no PCNs were issued. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator, flowing from this alleged parking event and the operator should make the terms of proving the car is 'exempt', much clearer to the onsite staff and to drivers in order to mitigate their alleged losses and to avoid genuine customers being wrongly ticketed.

2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers
CEL have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.

I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between CEL and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer. Also the contract must be with the landowner - not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder - and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that CEL can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name. A witness statement or site agreement will not suffice as evidence as these are generally pre-signed photocopies wholly unrelated to the contract detail and signed off by a person who may never have seen the contract at all. I insist that the whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged, and to see all terms and conditions, restrictions, charges, grace period and the locus standi of this operator.

3. 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). Also, as keeper I cannot be expected to guess the 'circumstances in which the requirement to pay...arose' because the charge is stated to be based on 'payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage'. This so-called outstanding 'payment' is not quantified and the signs do not support that contention (see point 4). There is no payment due for a car parked from 7pm for less than 2 hours and the signs also allow a 10 minutes grace period before charges arise. No fee was due so the NTK misstates the alleged contravention and fails to meet the strict requirements of POFA2012..

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.

4. Signage incapable of being read in the dark - no contract with driver
The sign at the entrance to the car park is multi-coloured, non-reflective, unlit and positioned high up on a pole. The sign was not seen by the driver and would have been invisible in the dark, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. At 7pm, the car park was shrouded in darkness, as is shown from CEL's own evidence photo, and the sign was far too high to even be picked out by car headlights.

The BPA CoP at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material...''

In addition, the terms & conditions are in particularly small font compared with the offer to park from 7pm for 2 hours for free. And the sign provides for 10 minutes grace by which any payment has to be made - and yet no grace period was allowed to this driver (see point 5 below). The sign's wording is misleading and where there is an unclear or ambiguous contract term, the doctrine of contra proferentem - giving the benefit of any doubt in favour of the party upon whom the contract was foisted - applies. It is up to the company to ensure their terms are clear and unambiguous, otherwise any ambiguity must be interpreted in the favour of the consumer.

5. No grace period given despite signage and BPA CoP
The BPA code of practice states that: “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

With two hours free parking from 7pm offered, and with car caught on camera at the entrance apparently just 3 minutes earlier, there has clearly been no ‘grace period’ given to the driver in this instance. I contest that the driver would have needed longer than 3 minutes to drive further into the car park, find a space, park, exit the vehicle, lock the car, locate the sign (in the dark), try to read the sign and then decide to stay in the car park. The sign itself indicates a 10 minute grace period before customers must have paid any amount due, so the Operator is aware that enforcement cannot start immediately - and yet in this instance they have applied an immediate PCN with zero grace period.

6. ANPR clock/synchronisation/reliability/data handling/ICO rules on ANPR signs
Because this Operator is actually trying to allege a 3 minute 'early arrival' contravention (I think!) I call into question the ANPR system accuracy. The time shown for first arrival at the entrance is just before 7pm and the whole contravention seems to hinge upon the accuracy of this clock. This would require an ANPR system with almost perfect manufacturer-stated accuracy which I contend is not the case.

So I require CEL to present records which prove:
- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.
- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.

This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. CEL must show their ANPR system has a zero failure rate and zero buffering delay. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle arriving at this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately.

BPA CoP paragraph 21 'Automatic number plate recognition' (ANPR):
''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

CEL fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. There is no signage to 'inform that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent'. This camera farms the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and is not there for 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any actual proof of a 'parking event' at all.

7. Unreasonable & Unfair Contract Terms - a penalty that cannot be recovered
The terms that the Operator in this case are alleging gave rise to a contract were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance to my potential detriment. There is no contract between the Operator & motorist but even if POPLA believes there was likely to be a contract then it is unfair and not recoverable.

It is unreasonable and an unfair contract term, to attempt to enforce charges immediately (before the car is even parked) in a car park with a 10 minute grace period advertised in the largest font on the sign. It is unreasonable and an unfair contract term, to enforce a charge where the signs are unlit and the actual t&cs, including the risk of a 'PCN' and the amount payable for breach, is unreadable. It is unreasonable and an unfair contract term, to enforce a charge alleging a car arrived at the entrance 3 minutes before 7pm, when any ANPR system will have a manufacturer's advised % failure rate stated within the user manual and there is no proof that the ANPR remote clock was correct.

This charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-
''5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.''

The Office of Fair Trading, Unfair Contract Terms Guidance:
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
''18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However... a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.''

It has recently been found by a Senior Judge in the appeal court that CEL's signs are not clear and transparent and their charges represent a penalty which is not recoverable. This was in 21/02/2014 (original case at Watford court): 3YK50188 (AP476) CIVIL ENFORCEMENT v McCafferty on Appeal at Luton County Court. I contend that this charge is also not a recoverable sum.

I put CEL to strict proof regarding all of the above contentions and if they do not address any point, then it is deemed accepted.

Yours faithfully


Is this the correct thing? The car park was never free for me you had to pay straoght away. Should i remove those parapraphs

Coupon-mad

You need to remove this bit from my username profile - don't send that to POPLA!

''Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 28,642
Thanked 38,475 Times in 16,597 Posts''

Is this the correct thing?

Yes but as I said it will need a bit of amending, by you, to suit.

The car park was never free for me you had to pay straight away. Should i remove those paragraphs?

Just change them to make sense but DO NOT say 'I' paid. The driver paid so there was no loss, etc.

And clearly this paragraph is not right but you must spot these things yourself; it's a car park you know about, not us but even I can see this isn't relevant!:

6. ANPR clock/synchronisation/reliability/data handling/ICO rules on ANPR signs

And have you done this, like I said?

...use the CEL POPLA example and change the wording about signage

If anyone else copies and pastes a signage point about 'in the dark' when it wasn't dark in their case (and doesn't change it) I will scream. If it was dark in your case I apologise but it is so frustrating when we see people copy complete templates verbatim, as if they can't write a letter. I can see you haven't amended the signage point as it talks about a 3 minutes overstay...which is not your case.

samabbey4

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers
3. No Keeper liability - the NTK is not compliant with the requirements of POFA2012
4. Signage incapable of being read - no contract with driver
5. The driver DID pay for the right to park


1. The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner. I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. The Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event by a driver who was fully authorised to be parked at that site.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no PCNs were issued. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator, flowing from this alleged parking event and the operator should make the terms of proving the car is 'exempt', much clearer to the onsite staff and to drivers in order to mitigate their alleged losses and to avoid genuine customers being wrongly ticketed.

2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers
CEL have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.

I put Civil Enforcement to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between CEL and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer. Also the contract must be with the landowner - not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder - and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that CEL can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name. A witness statement or site agreement will not suffice as evidence as these are generally pre-signed photocopies wholly unrelated to the contract detail and signed off by a person who may never have seen the contract at all. I insist that the whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged, and to see all terms and conditions, restrictions, charges, grace period and the locus standi of this operator.

3. 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). Also, as keeper I cannot be expected to guess the 'circumstances in which the requirement to pay...arose' because the charge is stated to be based on 'payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage'. This so-called outstanding 'payment' is not quantified and the signs do not support that contention (see point 4).

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.

4. Signage incapable of being read to due the size of font - no contract with driver
The sign at the entrance to the car park is miniscule ,unlit and positioned high up on a pole. The sign was not seen by the driver, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from.

The BPA CoP at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times.”

In addition, the terms & conditions are in particularly small font compared with other information, having revisiting the site, the driver DID pay the correct amount for the correct time spent in the car park. The sign's wording is misleading and where there is an unclear or ambiguous contract term, the doctrine of contra proferentem - giving the benefit of any doubt in favour of the party upon whom the contract was foisted - applies. It is up to the company to ensure their terms are clear and unambiguous, otherwise any ambiguity must be interpreted in the favour of the consumer.
5. The driver did pay for the right to park in the car park therefore there has been no loss to CEL

So I require CEL to present records which prove:
- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.
- the system that’s been used, why a letter has been issued when full monies was paid.

CEL fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. There is no signage to 'inform that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent'. This camera farms the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and is not there for 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any actual proof of a 'parking event' at all.
This charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-
''5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.''

The Office of Fair Trading, Unfair Contract Terms Guidance:
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
''18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However... a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.''

It has recently been found by a Senior Judge in the appeal court that CEL's signs are not clear and transparent and their charges represent a penalty which is not recoverable. This was in 21/02/2014 (original case at Watford court): 3YK50188 (AP476) CIVIL ENFORCEMENT v McCafferty on Appeal at Luton County Court. I contend that this charge is also not a recoverable sum.

I put CEL to strict proof regarding all of the above contentions and if they do not address any point, then it is deemed accepted.

Yours faithfully


Does this sound okay ? :eek::A

samabbey4

Also do I mention that I have a bank statement with the fee showing ? and do I mention that the system has put my wrong reg number in however I said the right reg number and paid ?

thanks very much!

Coupon-mad

however I said

Nope - there you go in one fell swoop, ruining the 'winning point' that there is 'no keeper liability', by using the word 'I' when talking about the event. That's why you're best not talking about what happened, in most cases - it's not really needed.

But, to show there was no loss, you could merely add to this sentence as shown, to cover it in appeal point 1:

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss because the driver did pay. They called the number and paid via bank card (the bank has also confirmed this and a copy of the statement is attached). Also the driver's phone calls are automatically recorded and when listening to the phone call in readiness to challenge this charge, the driver noticed that the automated system had picked up the last letter of the reg plate wrongly. This is a fault in Excel's system and there was no initial loss. This should have been spotted by Excel who have told the BBC that part of their 'usual checks' involves ensuring there has not been a small error in the number-plate on the system. Clearly their checks have failed on this occasion, as well as the automated system.

You could then also attach a Bank statement ('add evidence' after clicking 'submit appeal' online to POPLA). But cover up your name/address so it's not connected to you, and cover the sort code/account number for security reasons.

You could even attach a voice recording of the phone call if you want, if it doesn't give your name. I think any digital attachment is possible but don't worry if not.

samabbey4

Thankyou very much! it has been sent! dreading the reply fingers crossed though

How long does it take to here back? and how do you here back?

FrancisM2

Hi, I have just joined MSE forum as I need help with a PCN that came through my letter box. I read it and panicked and paid it via telephone. As it said that if I paid within 28 days of issue it would be reduced from 100 to 60 pounds. When I told my husband I had paid it he said I shouldn't of done so and that I need to get a refund. The question is will it be possible to now contest the PCN as I have already stupidly paid for it????

wiogs

FrancisM2 wrote: »

Hi, I have just joined MSE forum as I need help with a PCN that came through my letter box. I read it and panicked and paid it via telephone. As it said that if I paid within 28 days of issue it would be reduced from 100 to 60 pounds. When I told my husband I had paid it he said I shouldn't of done so and that I need to get a refund. The question is will it be possible to now contest the PCN as I have already stupidly paid for it????

Francis best to start your own thread, however I am not aware of you being able to get a refund.

Others may be able to offer more constructive advice.

Guys_Dad

FrancisM2 wrote: »

Hi, I have just joined MSE forum as I need help with a PCN that came through my letter box. I read it and panicked and paid it via telephone. As it said that if I paid within 28 days of issue it would be reduced from 100 to 60 pounds. When I told my husband I had paid it he said I shouldn't of done so and that I need to get a refund. The question is will it be possible to now contest the PCN as I have already stupidly paid for it????

1. You need to start your own thread as replies on here are for the OP.

2. Your chances are not good at all, I am afraid.

3. Appeal organisations like POPLA don't handle retrospective appeals.