Dropped in it by driver of my car

Coupon-mad

Civil Enforcement Ltd rejected the appeal with a letter dated 12/02/18 giving me a POPLA number and 14 days of grace (running out today?) to pay the 'reduced rate' of £60 rather than the penal rate of £100.

So what about 14 days. You won't be paying a penny! Don't you think £60 is a penal rate? I do!

You have two whole weeks, including weekends, to simply copy another CEL POPLA appeal, where the keeper has appealed and the driver is not admitted.

Now, what did the appellant write in your name? Please tell us they did NOT pretend you were the driver and write like that! As long as they didn't, this is so easy to win at POPLA it will be laughable.

Calm down, you have until mid March to read a few CEL POPLA appeals and show us yours. KeithP even told you exactly where to find one that you could almost copy verbatim.

For a keeper where the driver wasn't admitted, CEL ones are 100% winnable. Yes, every time.

ThrownOutTheAsylum

Thank you all.
Firstly, to clarify:
1. I did spend an hour searching here, including the POPLA appeal thread, before I wrote. Of the 3 cases that came up on the POPLA appeal thread, I dismissed 2 as they were for an NCP car park and judged the other not to answer my case as it was based on a broken machine. My first reaction was to to research the other points on that case, but decided that because time was running out I should post on my specifics.
2. I also had a quick look at the POPLA website and read their 2017 annual report, which had some very interesting statistics on CEL, such as: of 4495 appeals, 2585 were withdrawn, 1472 were refused and only 252 allowed).
3. I took POPLA having lawyers from another website. Checking the POPLA annual report's description of its team, I see that POPLA are very vague, suggesting that I was therefore wrong. My apologies.

Secondly, on one of the points above, the driver (more specifically, the person I let use my car and who paid for the ticket; he/she now tells me he/she may not have been driving, having let his/her friend drive) has told me that he/she pretended to be me in that appeal and just copied a template from here, but doesn't remember which one.

Thirdly, and more importantly, I have decided to appeal to POPLA.

Thank you for your help and advice; I will read all your sources in slower time.

Coupon-mad

OK, so just search the forum for CEL POPLA, and copy one!

We win ALL of them v CEL.

waamo

Your case is no different to any other. Find a recent winning appeal and cut and paste it.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

ThrownOutTheAsylum

Thank you everyone. My POPLA appeal was successful, with their failing to show that they had the landowners permission even before the assessor considered my other grounds.


DecisionSuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not make a payment in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the parking contract was made null and void by the operator. He states that the motorist paid £2.50, however the payment machine only registered £2.00 on the ticket. The appellant states that parking costs £1 for 20 minutes and £2.50 for an hour. Therefore, he believes that the motorist should have been given 40 minutes of parking time. The appellant adds that the payment machine also did not accept the correct vehicle registration number. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability as the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the signage is improperly and inadequately displayed. The appellant has disputed the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. He states that the signage does not clearly state what the ANPR footage will be issued for. The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence that it has any interest in the land, or the authority to pursue charges. The appellant states that the sum is extravagant, unconscionable and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has provided a photograph of the parking ticket to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, it has not provided any evidence of the landowner authority. As such, I am unable to establish whether the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for this car park. Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.