Civil Enforcement PCN on hospital

gavcradd

Hi, I'm fighting a PCN issued through the post to a friend by Civil Enforcement Ltd. Apologies for opening a new thread, but I'd like a bit of advice (please!) to make sure I'm doing the right thing (and I have read all the stickies but still feel confused!)

I should start by saying that I've won a few cases at POPLA in the past (back in 2014/15) so when my friend got a PCN, I was happy to take it on. However, it seems so much has changed...

The basic facts in this case are that my friend is alleged to have parked on hospital car park where signs saying "authorised vehicles only" were up (she didn't see them). The alleged incident took place on 22/10/17 and the PCN issue date is stated as 15/11/17 (so 24 days). Is this outside of a 14 day time limit seeing as there was no windscreen ticket?

Last time, my appeals were all based on "no genuine pre-estimate of loss", yet this seems to have disappeared from the sticky advice. Is this now something to not bother with? the sticky blue text says to appeal to Civil Enforcement with a very short complaint about signs lettering failing the test but this seeme very... short? I've also read on here about CEL not using the correct text for POFA 2012 and therefore the keeper not being liable, is that a point to appeal on?

The sticky mentioned not giving consent to obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA, but surely this is not worth bothering with seeing as they have already done this?

I know the ultimate goal here is to get the POPLA code, which I would do with any old complaint, but I'd like to get my head around the "winning points" now and not put my foot in it by saying anything that would work against me.

Thanks in advance for reading and replying :-)

Umkomaas

The sticky mentioned not giving consent to obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA, but surely this is not worth bothering with seeing as they have already done this?

Put it in the past tense!

I know the ultimate goal here is to get the POPLA code, which I would do with any old complaint, but I'd like to get my head around the "winning points" now and not put my foot in it by saying anything that would work against me.

Your main winning point here is ‘No Keeper Liability’ as their NtK is outside the 14-day deadline.

Add a final paragraph to the initial appeal from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 (blue text) to the above effect. It may cause CEL to cancel at the first hurdle, but if not, no worries, get your POPLA Code.

If you want the additional paragraph checking, post a draft here - but note the forum is very busy and we’ve lost a significant contributor.

Redx

the blue text template needs to be used "as is", but change that paragraph to Should you have obtained , ie:- past tense

that is the only alteration that is needed

if ANPR was used then yes the 14 days applies for POFA2012

if there was a windscreen ticket, it must have been removed after any photos were taken, known as "ghost ticketing"

2 years ago , BEAVIS lost at the Supreme Court , so not a gpeol died a death

CEL do not follow POFA2012, so that is a bonus as long as the drivers details are not divulged or hinted at

so add 6 characters to that blue text template and use it , nothing more to be added , nothing to be removed

you can adapt this post I made in post #4 , removing the Also clause #13 grace periods paragraph only

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73242562

get the popla code

gavcradd

Thanks - there was definitely no windscreen ticket as the person did not get out of the car. Just a PCN through the post a few weeks later.

So... the complaint I'm going with is :

Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd

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

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and
obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

I also believe that there is no keeper liability in this case as the PCN issue date of 15/11/2017 is more than 14 days since the incident date of 22/10/2017, as detailed on your PCN.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

In addition, I wish to formally complain that you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Me

All OK to go? Thanks in advance!

Redx

seems ok to me , yes

gavcradd

Redx - what is BPA CoP clause #13?

Umkomaas

I’d make the Keeper Liability paragraph your opener. Otherwise looks good to go.

KeithP

gavcradd wrote: »

Redx - what is BPA CoP clause #13?

Stick what is BPA CoP clause #13 into google for your answer.

gavcradd

Umkomaas wrote: »

I’d make the Keeper Liability paragraph your opener. Otherwise looks good to go.

Thanks - done this and submitted. Will await the next step...

Umkomaas

KeithP wrote: »

Stick what is BPA CoP clause #13 into google for your answer.

There does seem a general misunderstanding that the forum is the equivalent of an online chat line where regulars can be engaged in an ongoing discussion. And I did warn about the current pressures.

...... note the forum is very busy and we’ve lost a significant contributor.

gavcradd

Umkomaas wrote: »

There does seem a general misunderstanding that the forum is the equivalent of an online chat line where regulars can be engaged in an ongoing discussion. And I did warn about the current pressures.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment of your reply Umkomaas, it does come across as a little patronising - it's only natural to ask questions of "experts", especially for something as complicated as this. You are right, I could have googled the info I asked for and in the end, I did do this. The good natured, humerous reply from KeithP got this across very nicely.

I wouldn't have moaned at all if no one answered me because of the pressures - I get that. And I am EXTREMELY grateful for the advice above from others. I hope that I have recipricated on other boards.