CEL Ignored my Appeal

Le_Kirk

Here is your link made live: -
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhpMgqrdEuEhi0Yp-vHHA3Bhf98R

KeithP

Go back and re-read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Pay particular attention to the words following:

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

Coupon-mad

So sad to see you stuck at POPLA stage, purely because you used the AWFUL appeal template provided in the MSE article which blabbed about who was driving (NEVER DO THAT!) and mitigating circs (UTTERLY POINTLESS) and even worse 'no loss' (what are MSE thinking?).

If you had come to this forum (NOT just MSE) and appealed as keeper, using the FORUM TEMPLATE, then CEL would have cancelled as they had no case against the keeper.

MSE should be ashamed of the bad advice and woefully bad template 'appeal' that they keep in the article, that actually loses appeals. Shocking.

Anyway I would point out to POPLA that:

CEL rely on Vine v Waltham Forest* but have not been honest & told POPLA that it was a clamping case. More importantly, Miss Vine won her appeal at the CoA, due to the fact she was ill. Same as in my case, only we have the double argument for a slightly longer 'grace period' needed because our daughter was ill, & also the disability/Motobility issue - Blue Badge shown to POPLA. Which is why the (non parking) actions of 'arriving' and 'leaving' took just two minutes longer than an able bodied person's time limit.

A disabled person needs more time and we have provided ample evidence of why it took us longer to leave, and why '12 minutes' (including driving in time and parking!) is perfectly reasonable a grace period for us, given the 'ill child plus disabled passenger' circumstances.

The BPA CoP para 13 (and a BPA article about grace periods) says there must be sufficient 'observation' time allowed at the start, in addition to at least 10 minutes at the end. So for CEL to issue a PCN after 12 minutes is in breach.

CEL also mention 'not registering the VRN' but this was not the contravention alleged and is not clear on signs. Looks like just 2 people registered!

The sign shown (with no aerial view to show where they were in relation to the car, and no photos taken on site at all, nothing to show any entrance sign!) does not talk about 'total stay'. CEL offer 3 hours parking. And that is what we did - we only parked for 3 hours. CEL have failed to show we contravened that term. The 12 minutes is the DRIVING time taken to drive in, find a space, park, then at the end, cope with a sick child and a disabled passenger & then to drive out & exit. We had no idea that the time would not be calculated as parking time; nothing mentioned 'total stay' or that the ANPR camera data would be used this way.



*

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/211744405-Vine-v-Waltham-Forest-London-Borough-Council-2000-

''The particular circumstances of this case had also an unusual feature in that the plaintiff was ill. Thus in this case I would say (i) it would be less clear than in many other circumstances to a motorist that they were trespassing in pulling off the road into an area where there was both a way in and a way out; (ii) it would not be fair having regard to that factor and the position of the notice to say that any ordinary and sensible person should have realised at or before the time they parked their car that they would be clamped if they did so; and (iii) that the plaintiff’s illness made it in any event understandable how in her case she would not see the sign, or read it. Thus I agree that in the circumstances of this case, it would be wrong to hold that the plaintiff consented to and willingly assumed the risk of her car being clamped, and would allow the appeal to the extent indicated by Roch LJ.''

ML_123

Many thanks for the advice offered here guys, this has indeed been a particularly steep learning curve.
All the best.

ML_123

Could I add a link to a document if my comments on the operator's evidence amount to more than 2000 characters?

Coupon-mad

No you can't.

POPLA would ignore it and consider it 'introducing new evidence' that you cannot do at comments stage.

ML_123

You guys,

Just wanted to let you know that POPLA has given me a successful appeal decision against c en on grounds that they failed to prove landowner authority. I can't thank you enough for the advice given and this has really been a lesson learned.

HOWEVER...Cen has since sent a letter to me claiming that POPLA has deemed my appeal unsuccessful!!! Presumabley this is a pathetic attempt to extort money when they know they have lost.

Could you offer any further advice on how to deal with this situation so I can shut the imbecilic correspondence down once and for all? I'm thinking posting them back a printed statement from POPLA to prove their error in a strongly worded letter.

POPLA decision and cen correspondance links below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yn78wv2aooujfp2/parking%20cen.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qileid8zb29heyn/parking%20deision%20popla.pdf?dl=0

Once again, much appreciated all.

ML_123

Have added my appeal to the POPLA decisions thread!

Umkomaas

Could you offer any further advice on how to deal with this situation

Yes, you write to Steve Clark of the BPA and ask him to sort out his member (oops, that doesn't sound too good, does it! :rotfl:). He's very helpful. Copy him the paperwork from the PPC and POPLA.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Also bring this to your MP's attention and ask him/her to take note of how this industry is getting more and more out of control. Send these links:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=542818572836763&id=215232008599719&_rdr

Well done on your win, I'm sure this will be all over by the middle of next week.

beamerguy

ML_123 wrote: »

HOWEVER...Cel has since sent a letter to me claiming that POPLA has deemed my appeal unsuccessful!!! Presumabley this is a pathetic attempt to extort money when they know they have lost.

.

CEL are known to be pretty thick

I wonder what part of successful do they not understand ???

Steve Clark really must get his scam members sorted out