Greenwich High Road - Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) - ANPR

Fausty

Hi all,

I was hoping somebody could rate my chances appealing a PCN I have been issued and maybe help me to improve my case. My car was in the empty car park outside Sainsbury's for 13 minutes on a Sunday night and they have sent me a £100 fine!

Car park: Greenwich High Road
PCN Issuer: Civil Enforcement Ltd.
Time in car park: 13 minutes
PCN charge: £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)

I have the Sainsbury's receipt from the day although I went in recently and asked about the PCN and they said the car park outside had nothing to do with them so I guess the receipt won't help me in my appeal?

I read through the entire POPLA code of practice and tried to pick out all of their infringements ready for a POPLA appeal if necessary (this is how stressed out I am about it - I've not had a fun weekend!). My notes are at the bottom of this post in purple.

My plan is to appeal to CEL with the standard letter from the Newbies thread. CEL claim to have photographic evidence, although I have not seen them. In article 22.3 of the Code of Practice it says, "If the motorist asks for it, you should make available any photographic evidence you have", so I would like to ask them for the photos as well (I've edited the letter with the red text), as part of my appeal to CEL. I'm not sure if this contradicts the end of the letter though, "I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle".

---

Letter of appeal to CEL

Dear Sirs

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.

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, together with any photographic evidence, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain 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,

---

Notes from POPLA Code

Here are the notes I took when reading through the POPLA code of practice. I'm not sure if any of these are strong appeal points though:


The following items in the code of practice (version 6) have been breached:
• (2.7) The AOS logo is not displayed anywhere in the car park. (or at least I can't find it)
• (7.1) The company has not supplied evidence that it has written authorisation from the landowner.
• (13.2) The driver left the car park less than 13 minutes after entering. No reasonable grace period was given.
• (18) Signs
o (18.2 and appendix Entrance sign
 The landowner’s name is not on the sign
 There is not an item from group 1
 The group 2 text is not more than 50% the size of group 1 text
 The sign is not lit, nor made of retro-reflective material and was very difficult to see in the dark
o (18.3) Signs in the parking site are not lit so they are difficult to read, they are not conspicuous either.
• (18.5) If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. (13.4) At least 10 minutes must be given as grace period to leave the car park.
• (19.5) The terms and conditions on the sign state, “If you do not obtain a valid permit, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival; (b) not overstay the purchased parking time; (c) provide your full, exact registration number when making your payment. If in breach of any of these terms you will be charged £100”. This suggests that the charge is for breach of contract. The charge of £100 is not proportionate: the driver was on the premises for less than 13 minutes and the price for a parking ticket is £1. Clearly a charge that is 10,000% of the price of the parking ticket is neither proportionate nor commercially justifiable. Please see the ParkingEye Vs Cargius case.
• (21.1) The sign in the car park does not make it clear exactly what the data collected by ANPR cameras is used for.
• (22.3) Request photographic evidence from CEL.

The following items in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been breached:
• (9.2.c) The means by which the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of drivers

---

I found some recent forum threads by people who have been stung by the same car park. I've changed the http in the links to hxxp.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5687046/greenwich-high-road-civil-enforcement-ltd

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5510134/pcn-civil-enforcement-greenwich-high-road-london

Coupon-mad

My plan is to appeal to CEL with the standard letter from the Newbies thread

Good, one step at a time. Don't change ANY wording. CEL often fold when they see it!

Fausty

OK, if they don't fold, can I request the photos before going to the POPLA stage?

Umkomaas

Fausty wrote: »

OK, if they don't fold, can I request the photos before going to the POPLA stage?

Ask what you want, they’re unlikely to respond.

Fausty

If they didn't respond, would that work in my favour in the POPLA appeal stage, or does article 22.3 only relate to requests for photos made in the initial appeal to the company? Sorry, this is probably a minor thing but I just want to make sure I make my case as strong as possible.

Article 22.3 of the POPLA Code of Practice: "If the motorist asks for it, you should make available any photographic evidence you have".

KeithP

Wherever you mention POPLA Code of Practice, do you mean the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice?

What was the date of your parking incident?
I ask because a new version of the BPA CoP became effective on 01 January 2018.

BPA CoP versions are here:

www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Note that the current BPA CoP says:

22.3 If the motorist asks for it, you must make available any photographic evidence you have.

Note that the word 'should' has been replaced with 'must'.

Coupon-mad

You are overthinking it. You win now (most likely) or you win at POPLA anyway: 'no keeper liability'.

Fausty

Unfortunately the incident was on new years eve, so it would be the 'should' version.

Thanks all for the advice so far. I'll submit my first stage appeal using the newbies thread letter without making any changes.

Umkomaas

Fausty wrote: »

Unfortunately the incident was on new years eve, so it would be the 'should' version.

Should/must - these companies are totally unregulated. They will do what suits them - and they know they can get away with it, with impunity. If the BPA gets ‘heavy’ with them, they’ll jump ship to the even less ‘regulated’ pasture (trough) of the IPC. The BPA cannot afford to lose any more of its ‘heavyweight’ members.

The Code of Practice is not written to keep members in line, it is designed to convince (with the emphasis on ‘con’) the government that BPA members are ‘under control’.

Fausty

To update, I received a letter from CEL notifying me that the charge has been cancelled!

Thank you to Coupon-Mad, Umkomaas and KeithP for your help and reassurance! What a relief.

Coupon-mad

Great, same as this one today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5774648

Same as always with CEL! Easy, wasn't it?!