PCN letter with incorrect parking address

Usain_Boat

“
Hi all,
What a fantastic forum with so much valuable information.

I have parked in leisure center car park which is a 3 hours maxing free parking and over a month later , I have received a PCN letter from Civil Enforcement LTD saying I have exceeded the Maximum 3 hours parking by 40 minutes and therefore I have breached their terms and conditions .

On this letter , the car park address is incorrect, they have spelled it wrong with two letter missing and I have received this letter over a month after the incident date.

I have emailed them saying I haven't parked at the car park they stated on their letter and then I have received another letter with few CCTV picture of my car.

As you would do, I have ignored their second reminder letter and now I have received a Letter Before Action stating they take me to court.

Can I appeal against this PCN based on incorrect address and taking over a month to receive the letter ?

I am new to these stuff and would love to hear your view on this matter. I would like to challenge them and make other people aware of this type of scam in the future.

Any suggestion and views are welcome.

Best wishes.

Fruitcake

Did you appeal as keeper (I hope so) or as driver (I hope not?)

The misspelling may have been a ploy to get you to contact them and reveal the driver's identity. I hope it didn't work.

If there was no windscreen ticket then the notice to keeper has to arrive between day 28 and 56. If no windscreen ticket then the NTK has to arrive within 14 days. Was there a windscreen ticket?

Did you get a PoPLA code with your appeal rejection? You should have done.

Have you read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES?

What is the precise timeline of events please?

bod1467

You've said "no windscreen ticket" twice ... the first one should say "a windscreen ticket".

Usain_Boat

I haven't appealed yet and haven't got PoPLA code.

Do you guys think I have good reasons to win the appeal ? based on incorrect car park name and very late notice.

Many thanks again

Redx

they dont use CCTV so wont have sent you CCTV pictures, you have assumed this or made it up

they use ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit , or hand held cameras to take pictures in bays, I will "assume" its ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit

the NEWBIES sticky thread has a template appeal in blue text, for BPA members, so no idea why you would write a letter

if you dont tell them the driver details AND if they failed POFA2012 then the chances are you would win at popla or in court, but there are no guarantees

if there was a windscreen ticket (even if it was "missing") then the letter a month later is correct for POFA2012

you should be editing the above posts as you have revealed too much information

the drivers identity should be kept secret and this is a public forum, or do you think they dont read public forums even though up to 7 billion people have access to this forum ?

as for the incorrect car park name, that is a matter for either popla or a judge to decide, not us, but I doubt it will be the main legal argument here

I also suspect that your tardiness has resulted in you "timing out" of the appeal window of 28 days, so I doubt you will be successful in any appeal at the moment, plus I dont think they will give you a popla code either, due to the appeal window having "timed out"

Coupon-mad

Usain_Boat wrote: »

Hi Fruitcake,

I have not appealed yet . I only send them an informal email saying I have not parked at the address they mentioned on the letter. Then they have send me CCTV pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park. I am the driver and I have not mentioned the drivers name or confirmed It was me.

There was no windscreen ticket , the letter came through the post exactly a month later after the incident.

I haven't appealed yet and haven't got PoPLA code.

I am drafting a letter and hopefully email them soon.

Do you guys think I have good reasons to win the appeal ? based on incorrect car park name and very late notice.

Many thanks again

Why are you drafting a letter? The keeper sends the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread by email to CEL, it is that simple at this stage. No drafting of any letter needed, please. You need a formal appeal showing your name and address as keeper but not saying who was driving.

Usain_Boat

Thank you all for the great amount of information.

I am really rubbish at following all the past examples on here and understand it.

regarding appealing against the PCN, do I need to write all the reasons that the PCN is invalid and should be canceled ? and do I just email it to them ?

Thanks a lot

Redx

the appeal words are written in blue text in the NEWBIES sticky thread, all done for you , simple

use any communication method that CEL mention on their NTK

Usain_Boat

Thanks Redx,

Sorry my mistake, yes they didn't use CCTV! they have used ANPR cameras.
When I received the first PCN letter through the post, they didn't provide any photos of the incident. They posted photos of the car a week later separately.

Do all Private Companies have to comply to POFA 2012 legislation? I received a PCN dated 30 days after the parking took place. Also the driver of the car was using the leisure center when this took place.

Is it sufficient to appeal on the grounds that the ticket was not issued per the POFA guidance below.?
Thanks

Redx

no they dont need to comply at all

to try to invoke keeper liability in england and wales, they are advised to follow POFA2012 or a judge may throw it out (or popla , or even the IAS)

but many use the assumption that the keeper and the driver are the same person, so follow that dictat instead

some may try to use both in order to hold the keeper liable for the charge

but they are not compelled to adhere to POFA2012, plus for scotland and Northern Ireland POFA2012 does not even apply anyway (I know this fact doesnt apply in your case as its england)

its a good defence argument though, if they failed the test

Coupon-mad

NEWBIES thread tells you that CEL are one who choose not to use POFA and they don't have to. Just means they can't have 'keeper liability'!