CE Ltd PCN Appeals

sickofpcn

Hi All,

I have also received a parking charge notice from Ce-Services for parking in at Holiday inn express Birmingham on 28th of September which i have just found in post couple of days ago which has now already past 14 and 28 days period i think.

A friend of min came from India and he was staying at Holiday in express we went out for a dinner on the way back he asked me to drop him to his hotel i went to drop him and he asked me come in as he wanted to show me some samples so we were there at reception area for about an hour without knowing any parking restrictions in place and now i have received £100/£60 PCN.

Can anyone help me avoid this, how can i appeal against, do i have a valid case, could i say my friend asked me to drop him or borrowed my car etc?

sickofpcn

I have submitted my response Below to CE-Service by using a template available on one of the forum

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

I am writing to appeal the above PCN sent to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.

As you do not appear to have identified the driver at the time of the alleged infringement, it is assumed that your company intends to rely on the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Schedule 4 Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the PoFA stipulate the mandatory information that must be included in a Notice to Keeper (NTK), in order for it to be valid. Amongst many other requirements, it stipulates that the NTK must:

!!!61607; Advise that the driver is responsible for the parking charge and the amount, and that it has not been paid in full.

Unfortunately, your company has failed to provide the above information on the NTK and therefore it fails to meet the requirements of Paragraph 6 Schedule 4 of the PoFA in establishing keeper liability.

It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.

As you have failed to establish keeper liability under the PoFA, I will not be making any payment in respect of this PCN. Your alleged contract is with the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement, and I am afraid that I am unable to assist you with identifying the driver on the specified date and time.

Please ensure that your reply includes a notice of cancellation of the above PCN.

Yours sincerely,

sickofpcn

Can anyone advice me if i have done the right thing?

The_Deep

This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.

That should give them pause for thought. Are you aware of the goings on in the House of Commons?

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..

Umkomaas

It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.

I'm not sure whether there's a read-across to private parking or not. I'm not trying to undermine your point, but I've not seen this argued here before. Will be interesting to see what POPLA make of this if it gets that far.

The_Deep

If I were the PPC, I would tread very carefully here. The OP is either a very good con man, or knows his/her legal onions.

sickofpcn

I have forwarded previous template to CE LTD but today i have received another letter in post which was obviously sent before my response as the date on the letter is 6th of November and it is as it follows!

I know it might be to early to respond but i would want some one to to advice me on this please.


Date: 06/11/2018
Vehicle Registration: XXXX XXX
PCN Reference: XXXXXXXXX
Date of Incident: 28/09/2018 ( Parked in breach of Terms & Conditions)
Site Details: Holiday inn Express

TO MAKE PAYMENT CALL 0113 822 5020 / VISIT WW.CE-SERVICES.CO.UK


LETTER OF NOTIFICATION REGARDING KEEPERS LIABILITY

Dear Sir/ Madam,

It has been over 30 days since the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued to you and debt remains unpaid.

Therefore, in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle, You are now liable for the full amount outstanding for this PCN for the reasons listed below.

You have failed to provide us with any information as requested by the Notice to Keeper; Or
You have failed to provide the full, correct name of the driver and their current address fro service
You have identified someone who has denied being the driver at the time of the parking event mentioned above or has not responded at the address provided; or
You are a Hire or Leasing company and have not provided the full documentation and information required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order us to transfer liability for this Parking Charge Notice.

Payments can be made by calling xxxxxxxxxxxxxx via our website on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or by sending a cheque or postal order to Civil Enforcement Ltd,xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx

Please note that the IAS ( Independednt Appeal Service) is no longer available at this stage.

Unless full payment is received within 14 days we will be left with no alternative but to instruct third party collection agents to start the debt recovery process. Further Costs May be incurred

Coupon-mad

I would just wait for a reply to your appeal.

I have seen this before, a while back:

It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.

Here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t119522.html

and nosferatu1001 added:

nosferatu1001
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 15:25

The entire POINT is that they cannot put POFA required wording on the payment slip - because the payment slip is NOT the NtK, despite being attached to it. the High Court has ruled on this, it is binding on lower courts, so they would lose at small claims.

and CEL cancelled the PCN - course they did!

sickofpcn

I have today received response and CE -Services Refused my appeal and they said as keeper of the vehicle you could be liable for the fine.

I will post full letter contents bit later

Coupon-mad

No thanks, no rejection letter (again...). It just means you are at POPLA stage and will win there, so now read about POPLA on the sticky thread, post #3 and see the template points to use, including no keeper liability.

sickofpcn

Are you referring to this content from the thread?
is it completely relevant in my case as i will be submitting appeal as no keepers liability and Claimant company is Civil Enforcement Ltd not UKPC?


POPLA Appeal Letter

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by UKPC. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on xx/xx/2016 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by xx/xx/2016. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to UKPC.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“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”.

Section 7.3 states: “The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay UKPC. UKPC have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court.

I put UKPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.