PCN - Hertfordshire, England

echo_nug

Hi
I'm new to the forum and have been issued with a PCN on private land and wonder if anyone can offer any advice?


I am the registered keeper of the car and the PCN came to me by post - my husband was the driver waiting for me after work and pulled into a Pub car park for 13 minutes and didn't leave the car.


This was on 20.11.15 the PCN is dated 07.12.15 & was received by me on 10.12.15 - which reading the IPC guidelines seems to be out of their 15 day time frame is this a valid point?


Unfortunately having not done any research my husband contacted the PCN issuer Civil Enforcement Ltd on my behalf and admitted he was the driver and completed their appeal on line which has now been rejected and we have been given the option of appealing to POPLA.


I have spent most of this evening going through various threads on this forum and wish I had done it earlier as we've obviously given them too much information.


I have cut and pasted some info from a previous appeal - would anyone mind giving it a quick look please?


I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg: PXX XXX I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd on the following grounds:

• Waiting in this car park by the driver was on 20 November 2015, the PCN was issued on 7 December 2015 via mail and not received by me until 10 December 2015. IPC code of practice – Notice to keeper for ANPR states ‘be given so that it will be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking’
• The driver did not leave the car they were waiting in the car for me to finish work

3) Inadequate and Lack of IPC Compliant Signage (see file attachments Signage)

The signage located at the site was not seen, our email to Civil Enforcement Ltd requested confirmation of when these signs were installed. I have since re-visted the site and taken photographs and the signs are very new. This point was not addressed in their response and only a standard letter has been sent (see file attachment Civil),


The signs form no contract with the driver, they are unclear they mention registered customers and valid permit and do not meet the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) guideline requirements. Firstly terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party ‘must’ have known about it and agreed. The signage present at the location of the alleged contravention does not identify Civil Enforcement Ltd as a creditor for any charges that arise out of the contract or damages following a breach of the contract. Therefore, this cannot form a contract between the driver and landowner or Civil Enforcement.

Consequently, should a contract be found to exist between the landowner and the driver, Civil Enforcement not having been identified as a creditor are unable to pursue this claim as stated on page 10 [Part B: 1(2.1)] and page 27 [Other Signs: (1)] of the IPC CoP. To date, no authority has been provided that establishes that Civil Enforcement are authorized to pursue this claim on behalf of the landowner, which also does not comply POFA, 2012.



Within the IPC CoP Schedule 1 – Signage it clearly states on page 25 signage should “Signs must, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such that it is obvious to the motorist” and on page 27 [Other Signs (4)] “Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle must be able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”. A lack of signage on a site is a breach of the IPC CoP requirements stated.

Furthermore, due to the high positioning along with the overall minute size of text used, the signage is barely legible making it difficult to read and understand. On page 26 of IPC CoP it clearly states that “The signs must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all the of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead” and on page 27 “The signs must be at a suitable height – is suggest that no part of the sign which contains relevant text should be over 6’’, or under 12’’, from the ground level. Such text must be of a size which is easily legible having regard to the location and in any event should not be less than 5mm in height” (see attached Signage copies).


Furthermore the signs are obvious in daylight but at 5pm in November in an unlit car park the signs are not sufficiently visible – as per attached

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Civil Enforcement are relying upon being too small for any driver to see, read and understand whilst driving or stationary, as the text containing the information is not easily legible as it is WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS, which for anyone dyslexic can cause major problems. The British Dyslexia Association and Gov. UK state that “Use a plain, evenly space sans seif font such as Arial and Comic Sans. Alternatives include Verdana, Tahoma, Century Gothic, Trebuchet. AVOID TEXT IN BLOCK CAPITALS: this is much harder to read”.

Similarly, the IPC CoP as on page 27 [Other Signs (5)] states that signs must “Have clear and unambiguous wording and be designed such as to leave the driver under no doubt that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing trespass as the case may be” . The sign fails this requirement as there was no agreement to pay. This is a non-negotiated and unexpected third party ‘charge’ imposed upon legitimate motorists who are not ‘customers’ of Civil Enforcement and not expecting to read a contract when they wait in an unmarked parking bay.



The signage is ambiguous and contradictory. In the PCN the sum is stated in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage, yet the parking mentions registered customers and permits. This is not a transparent contract and is disguised penalty.


I request the IPC to check the Civil Enforcement evidence and signage on this point and compare the signs to the IPC Code of Practice requirements. I contend the signs in place on this land do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]. All of the points mentioned clearly justify how Civil Enforcement have failed to fulfill the IPC CoP requirements with regard to signage.

4) Contract with Landowner

Civil Enforcement does not own the land and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their PCN and in the rejection letter, Civil Enforcement has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment for the title of the land in question. Within the IPC CoP Part B, paragraph 2.1 states the requirement of such an agreement.

I request that the IPC check whether Civil Enforcement have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier and check that it specifically enables this operator to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor and through the court system.

Furthermore, it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the IPC CoP to allow the operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the IPC Code of Practice.

5) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of parking terms, consequently I contend, and the IPC Code of Practice states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss. The requirement to demonstrate that the charge was based on a genuine pre-estimate applies to this alleged contravention as a driver cannot contract to park in such a way that the sign does not ‘permit’.

The_Deep

Did the paperwork mention v.a.t., it should have.

If, as they claim, this is contractual charge, it is a fee for parking, and thus vatable.

Ask them for a vat invoice. If they ignore your request, (which they probably will), it is a useful stick with which to beat them if it ever gets to court.

More reading here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

If you suspect tax evasion report it to the fraud hot line here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5087925&highlight

Coupon-mad

This was on 20.11.15 the PCN is dated 07.12.15 & was received by me on 10.12.15 - which reading the IPC guidelines seems to be out of their 15 day time frame is this a valid point?

It was, but not under the IPC CoP, instead it's from the POFA 2012 - until you said the driver had done this:

Unfortunately having not done any research my husband contacted the PCN issuer Civil Enforcement Ltd on my behalf and admitted he was the driver and completed their appeal on line

So presumably the POPLA code & rejection went to your husband as the driver? So he has to do the POPLA appeal - at least it must be in his name (you can use your email address if you are actually the person doing this). And sadly you cannot use anything AT ALL from the POFA so the timeline of the notice is now irrelevant. Would have been a likely winner if you had appealed as keeper from the start, as you should have done. After all, the Notice was addressed to you, not him. Too late now.

Why are you quoting the IPC CoP when CE Ltd are with the BPA? You have POPLA so the BPA CoP applies.

Also the numbering looks dodgy in your draft, I couldn't make out a sequence 1 - 5 in your points.

Change the appellant to 'the driver' as you are stuck with that position now (it must be in your OH's name).

However, it's good to see a newbie read up and it and come to us with a draft POPLA appeal. Give us all a chance to comment this week, reply if you need more help and we will assist you. No rush unless your husband's rejection letter is dated almost 28 days ago.

echo_nug

Ok Thank-you the rejection letter was dated 30.12.15 so I have a bit of time


I didn't realise the IPC and BPA were different codes of practice - still learning I will adjust my draft accordingly - many Thanks

echo_nug

Hi All


I have now composed my appeal and would be grateful for any feed back


Do you think I have a good enough case to go to appeal - our rejection letter has given us up to 12.01.2016 to pay at the reduced rate of £60- if we go to appeal and lose it will be £100


I know I am falling into their trap and my pride does want to pursue this - honest opinion please


I wanted to try and upload the photos I have but am having trouble at the moment




My wife is the registered keeper of vehicle reg: PXX XXX I was the driver and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd on the following grounds:

1: Waiting in this car park was on 20 November 2015, the PCN was issued on 7 December 2015 via mail and not received by us until 10 December 2015.

2:I did not leave the car I was waiting in the car for my wife to finish work – having arrived early. According to the ANPR cameras this was for a total of 13 minutes. I dispute this as I am sure I was not waiting that long— I therefore request proof of the timings from the ANPR cameras and the manual checking recommended by the British Parking Association (BPA) clause 21.2

3:Inadequate and Lack of BPA Compliant Signage (see file attachments Signage)

The signage located at the site was not seen, our email to Civil Enforcement Ltd requested confirmation of when these signs were installed. I can honestly say I did not see any signs whilst I was sitting in the car waiting. I have since re-visted the site and taken photographs and the signs are very new. This point was not addressed in the response from Civil Enforcement and only a standard letter has been sent (see file attachment Civil).

The signs form no contract with the driver, they are unclear they mention registered customers and valid permit and do not meet the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) guideline requirements. Firstly terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party ‘must’ have known about it and agreed. The signage present at the location of the alleged contravention does not identify Civil Enforcement Ltd as a creditor for any charges that arise out of the contract or damages following a breach of the contract. Therefore, this cannot form a contract between the driver and landowner or Civil Enforcement.

Consequently, should a contract be found to exist between the landowner and the driver, Civil Enforcement not having been identified as a creditor are unable to pursue this claim. To date, no authority has been provided that establishes that Civil Enforcement are authorized to pursue this claim on behalf of the landowner, which also does not comply POFA, 2012.

As previously mentioned I was not aware of any signage at the site on 20 November 2015 but having revisited the site the signs are obvious in daylight but at 5pm in November in an unlit car park the signs are not sufficiently visible – as per attached.

Within the BPA CoP – Signs and Information it clearly states on page 10 section 18—signage should “Signs must, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park. This car park is on a town high street having turned left into the car park—the sign on the post would not have been seen.

Signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle—Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see read and understand— section 18.3

Furthermore, due to the high positioning along with the overall minute size of text used, the signage is barely legible making it difficult to read and understand. Lighting and illumination is also an issue at the time of this PCN. In line with the BPA CoP appendix B—signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including 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 direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. Signs here are not illuminated and the car park is not lit as per the attached pictures. A lack of lighting on a site is a breach of the BPA CoP requirements.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Civil Enforcement are relying upon being too small for any driver to see, read and understand whilst driving or stationary, as the text containing the information is not easily legible as it is WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS, which for anyone dyslexic can cause major problems. The British Dyslexia Association and Gov. UK state that “Use a plain, evenly space sans seif font such as Arial and Comic Sans. Alternatives include Verdana, Tahoma, Century Gothic, Trebuchet. AVOID TEXT IN BLOCK CAPITALS: this is much harder to read”.

Similarly, the BPA CoP as on section 18.6—should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs . The sign fails this requirement as there was no agreement to pay. This is a non-negotiated and unexpected third party ‘charge’ imposed upon legitimate motorists who are not ‘customers’ of Civil Enforcement and not expecting to read a contract when they wait in an unmarked parking bay.

The signage is ambiguous and contradictory. In the PCN the sum is stated in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage, yet the parking mentions registered customers and permits. This is not a transparent contract and is disguised penalty.

I request the BPA to check the Civil Enforcement evidence and signage on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend the signs in place on this land do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]. All of the points mentioned clearly justify how Civil Enforcement have failed to fulfil the BPA CoP requirements with regard to signage.

4:Contract with Landowner

Civil Enforcement does not own the land and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their PCN and in the rejection letter, Civil Enforcement has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment for the title of the land in question. Within the BPA CoP page 7 section 7.1 states the requirement of such an agreement.

I request that BPA check whether Civil Enforcement have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier and check that it specifically enables this operator to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor and through the court system.

Furthermore, it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA CoP to allow the operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

5:The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of parking terms, consequently I contend, and the BPA Code of Practice states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss. The requirement to demonstrate that the charge was based on a genuine pre-estimate applies to this alleged contravention as a driver cannot contract to park in such a way that the sign does not ‘permit’.

Coupon-mad

As previously mentioned I was not aware of any signage at the site. [STRIKE]on 20 November 2015 but having revisited the site the signs are obvious in daylight but [/STRIKE] At 5pm after dark in November in an unlit car park the signs are not sufficiently visible – as per attached.

echo_nug

Hi


I've just been onto the POPLA appeal site and it looks like I can only appeal on one point and the information boxes only allow 2000 characters is this right? Or am I missing something


Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

You are missing everything. The NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you how to appeal to POPLA by PDF, full appeal.