PCN but parked in private compound

ampersand

Another burst of connectivity notspot just wiped & post.
#
Gist:
While agreeing in principle with the sentiments and suggestions of #s 38, 39, 40, we mse posters will not be on end of any fall-out, for good or ill, that may follow publicity or hefty letters.

Julie, you can be clever by following the line often given to newbies for old-style Popla: make the Assessor your friend, for which read [with another big mse;)]- in this case - that 'aggressive' party, or whoever else is relevant and blocking co-operation in presenting a united and informed front.

Let them take credit if needs must, but bring them on side.

Strongly propose to take responsibility for that retrospective white-list diary, as per #32. If you must, present it as one pettifogging office task fewer for them, kudos to you.

'Courting' your principal in some form has already been an element in gaining that sub-contract.

Continue thus now and 'kindly offer' :-) to take responsibility for that retrospective white-list diary.

Drivers' arrivals and departures timed, vehicle reg. taken, tally list passed to pp scumpany and legibly signed DATED RECEIPT for same obtained, retained - c'est tout.

That's weapon loaded against any future !!!!!!-up or deliberate extortion attempt.

julienetmum

No press department ha ha. As I said before we are a small family run company with less than 30 employees.


The engineer in charge of the contract has spoken to someone from the hospital who reckons he can get it cancelled but my boss doesn't trust that and wants me to write my appeal anyway.


I'm just trying to persuade him to let me leave the letter it as it is using this template wording and not add to it in his own words!!!

julienetmum

And amper, dandelion and herzlos are completely right. Going to the press would not be a good idea if we want to carry on working!

bod1467

julienetmum wrote: »

I'm just trying to persuade him to let me leave the letter it as it is using this template wording and not add to it in his own words!!!

Tell him that the first appeal is worded from experience to avoid prejudicing the case. Rewording is a very bad idea.

ampersand

Really emphasise bod's #^, julie.

You could bring him here and show we know what we're talking about.

Most people have heard of our St Martin of Lewis, know him from columns or Box.

If afternoon teabreak still exists in the world of hard, time-driven construction work, may I suggest it's kettle on+2 mugs time? He'll probably be glad to leave this to you after a few minutes of scanning Forum and success Threads, I'd warrant.

We can make powerful after-letters too, if necessary, just to ensure this grubby little fake invoice factory does not interfere again during the course of this contract.

I really want this to be feasible - can you try? :-)

Edna_Basher

Hi julienetmum.

Over the last year or so, our company has received and dealt with three PCNs from Civil Enforcement Ltd. We challenged them all in our company’s name, focusing upon CEL’s non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and we managed to get CEL to cancel all three at the first stage without having to go through the hassle of POPLA. Perhaps CEL feel more intimidated when challenged by a company rather than an individual consumer?

julienetmum wrote: »

I need to put in identifying details but is there anything else I should/should not have in?

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

If your company is to challenge these charges in its own name, your letters will need to make this clear - something along the lines of:

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]

We refer to your letter dated [Date of NtK] in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to us by Civil Enforcement Ltd (“CEL”) as a Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) which alleges a contravention of Parking Terms and Conditions by the driver of the above vehicle at [Name of Hospital] on [Date of Incident]. We confirm that our company, [ABC Limited] is the keeper of this vehicle in accordance with the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

We write to formally challenge this charge, setting out below why it is not valid.........



Include all relevant points of challenge



Closing with............

We therefore require you to confirm to us that CEL shall withdraw its claim against our company. Alternatively, should you choose to reject our challenge, please provide us with within the timescales specified within the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that we may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to receiving CEL’s notification that this charge has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Insert squiggle for a signature]

ABC Limited, Speculative Invoice Management Department



The Notices to Keeper that we received from CEL were hopelessly non-compliant with POFA 2012. In fact, it wasn’t even clear as to whether they had been issued on the back of evidence captured from ANPR or a Notice to Driver issued at the time by an on-site operative. They contained no photographic evidence, only a statement that “we have photographic evidence of this incident”.

We received the last of these three PCNs back in May 2015 and since then, CEL may have changed the format of their Notice to Keeper. However, if your company’s Notices to Keeper are similar to ours, you would be justified in including the following two points in your letters.

1. CEL’s NtK did not comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

As a consequence of the failure of its NtK to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, CEL has forfeited any right to hold our company liable for this charge.

The NtK does not even explain whether a Parking Charge Notice was issued to the driver at the time of the alleged incident (in which case Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 would apply) or whether CEL is seeking to rely upon photographic evidence captured by ANPR cameras (in which case Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 would apply).

In the case of the latter, the NtK was delivered significantly outside of the 14 day limit prescribed under POFA 2012. In the case of the former, there are many reasons why the NtK did not comply with Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; we suggest that you carefully study the detail of this Paragraph to understand why.

2. CEL has produced no reliable evidence that the vehicle was parked without authorisation

Although CEL claims that it has photographic evidence of the incident it has produced no such evidence to substantiate its allegation. As detailed above, the NtK does not even make it clear whether the evidence that CEL claims to hold was obtained from an on-site operative or from ANPR cameras.

julienetmum

Thank you so much edna,


Our notice to keeper reads (underneath the address box & details of vehicle reg etc.


"On 16 September 2015 the above vehicle which was parked at : XXXXXX Hospital XXXXaddress
From 09.16.49 to 109.59.04


We therefore require payment of this Parking Charge Notice, in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage:


Authorised vehicles only


Amount due within 28 days £100
Reduced if paid within 14 days £60


Failure to pay the amount due within 28 days of the issue date may result in Civil Enforcement Ltd forwarding your account to a debt recovery agency and you may incur additional costs."


That first paragraph is awful English!

Edna_Basher

It sounds like your versions of CEL's Notice to Keeper are pretty much the same as ours; poorly written and containing no evidence to support their claim.

julienetmum

Updated to follow Edna's advice.


We refer to your letter dated 13th October 2015 in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice issued to us by Civil Enforcement Ltd (“CEL”) as a Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) which alleges a contravention of Parking Terms and Conditions by the driver of the above vehicle at X Hospital on 16th September 2015. We confirm that our company, X Ltd. is the keeper of this vehicle in accordance with the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

We write to formally challenge this charge,
1. CEL’s NtK did not comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

As a consequence of the failure of its NtK to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, CEL has forfeited any right to hold our company liable for this charge.

The NtK does not even explain whether a Parking Charge Notice was issued to the driver at the time of the alleged incident (in which case Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 would apply) or whether CEL is seeking to rely upon photographic evidence captured by ANPR cameras (in which case Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 would apply).

In the case of the latter, the NtK was delivered significantly outside of the 14 day limit prescribed under POFA 2012. In the case of the former, there are many reasons why the NtK did not comply with Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; we suggest that you carefully study the detail of this Paragraph to understand why.
2. CEL has produced no reliable evidence that the vehicle was parked without authorisation.
As detailed above, the NtK does not even make it clear whether the evidence that CEL claims to hold was obtained from an on-site operative or from ANPR cameras. The vehicle was not parked on the hospital public car park but inside a service compound some distance away from the designated public car parking areas. As contractors working on site, our drivers were instructed by security to park inside the service compound and to sign in the book on arrival.
3. There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land.
I have complained to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing.
4. Signage external to the service compound is neither compliant, nor applicable to its parking compound.
The wider hospital site signage generally is ambiguous and its predominant purpose is to deter. Thus, there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.
The only signage on entry to the hospital grounds, mandatory for construction site access, relates only to the hospital's public car parking areas. These are located some distance away from the service compound.

To reiterate, there is no signage on entrance to the compound and no signage or instructions on the touch screen at the compound. Compliant and specific parking terms signage must tell drivers what terms and conditions apply.

There are no signs, compliant or otherwise, containing the specific parking terms throughout the compound site, so no construction site driver was given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.


5. Signage did not make it clear to regular visitors to the compound that there had been a change and there was no grace period.
Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.


6. The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.

We therefore require you to confirm to us that CEL shall withdraw its claim against our company. Alternatively, should you choose to reject our challenge, please provide us with within the timescales specified within the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that we may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to receiving CEL’s notification that this charge has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Edna_Basher

My only suggestion would be to amend Point 3 to:

3. CEL is not the landowner and does not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in its own right.

We do not believe that CEL has the standing to raise claims in its own right in respect of this car park. If CEL disputes this, we shall require it to produce comprehensive proof to support its claim.

Otherwise, the letter looks good to me; hopefully CEL will throw in the towel at the first stage.

Don't forget, you'll need to send separate letters for each PCN.