PCN from Civil Enforcement "CE" - Now at POPLA

InFi[D]eL

So I've been reading and re-reading for a couple of days and in truth it's a bit of an information overload.

I want to check that I'm taking the correct steps before proceeding.


For reference we are dealing with a postal Parking Charge Notice and not a windscreen PCN.

This was for a vehicle that was hired and the hire company forwarded the postal PCN and thus has named the lessee to the company which is "Civil Enforcement or CE" https://www.ce-service.co.uk

If I have understood correctly the **NEWBIES** thread the correct response is to use the template in said thread and sign it as the lessee with my name and postal address included.

I was having trouble digesting the following part that is in bold and wanted to check I do in fact sign my name as the lessee?

THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE.

THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME HERE INSTEAD, IF YOU ARE NOT THE KEEPER/HIRER/LESSEE. YOU ARE NOT HELPING IF YOU DO THIS WRONG BY APPEALING IN THE WRONG NAME!

Am I on the correct track here and is there anything I should add or remove?

Thanks so much.

Coupon-mad

You need this merged with your old thread if it's about the same case.

Why not paste the above into a reply on that thread, it gives us context.

DUPLICATE THREAD PLEASE IGNORE

check I do in fact sign my name as the lessee?

Yesa nd no. Yes the lessee sends it. But no, you should be using the template for lease cars, written by Edna Basher, in the section in the NEWBIES thread about lease/company cars.

InFi[D]eL

But the template is for a hire company / fleet manager and not a consumer who hires the vehicle, right?

In the section you reference in the Newbies thread it says;

If the hire/lease co gets a postal PCN and names you as the driver/hirer, that is a good thing as it removes them from the loop entirely and then you can follow the above advice as appropriate to your case

So does that not mean use "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING?"

---

EDIT;

So having read the monster Newbies thread once again I noticed something. Under the section for hire/lessee there are some links to other posts but these where linking to the first post in the thread and confused me somewhat. But what I had not realised previously and have since is that the links where supposed to point to a specific post so having swapped to another browser I'm seeing more pertinent info which makes some more sense. I was suffering from monumental information overload about this issue.

I'm going to re-collect my info and get it in this thread to make life easier for everyone. Sorry but I am finding this quite hard to wrap my head around.

InFi[D]eL

So here is the story.

On Friday the 23rd I received a Parking Charge Notice in the post. Obviously this means this is a postal PCN and not from a windscreen.

The PCN shows two photos of the vehicle presumably from ANPR. One photo is the front and the other of the back so is presumably the vehicle entering then leaving.

The date of the alleged issue which has resulted in this PCN is 29/10/18
The alleged time is just under 16 minutes in which no payment was made for parking.
The date on the PCN (as in date of issue) is: 19/11/2018
Payment is due within 28 days "reduced if within 14" 28 days = December 17th.

The vehicle in question was leased from a hire company and thus if I understand the terminology at this point this makes me the effective keeper throughout the hire term but not necessarily the driver.


I have spoken to the company who handled the hire to enquire as to what documents and information they provided and I wasn't given a totally certain response. It was believed that they sent the PCN back to CE SERVICE with my details as the lessee and thus effectual keeper but the person I spoke with at the hire firm did not believe that they had sent a copy of the actual lease agreement.

I read the following which I will quote;

1) Highview has to write to the RK (Citroen) within 14 days.
2) Citroen has to send Highview the details of the Hirer and the documents required by Para 13.2 within 28 days.
3) Highview writes to the Hirer within 21 days of receiving the information from Citroen with a NTK [Notice to keeper] and the documents required by para 13.2
The hirer becomes the keeper but may not be the Driver!

Clarification; These are not the same companies I'm involved with but I'm trusting the policies and requirements are universal.

Having read the quoted text, assuming it remains valid info. Has CE ("Civil Enforcement") already ballsed it up and given me grounds for appeal? They haven't sent me anything other than the PCN.

Should I then appeal on December 16th, the day before the payment due date? This surely is as late as I can leave it and gives me the best chance of not getting all the required documents within the 21 day period CE has; correct?


I need to stop here and let this and any replies sink in as I';m struggling to keep it straight in my head.

Coupon-mad

Yes they have already ballsed it up, as all PPCs do. None include the documents.

So a hirer who never says who was driving, has a 100% win at POPLA and this is very easy!

InFi[D]eL

That's awesome C/m thanks.

So I'm good to send the below template from Edna Basher a day or two before the charge is due to be paid by?

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice [1111]: Vehicle Registration [1111]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Civil Enforcement Ltd (“CE”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why CE's Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

Given that CE has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.


Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

InFi[D]eL

So things have developed now; CE FINALLY did respond to me with a POPLA code.

I was going to send the following to POPLA under the "Other" category for my appeal but thought it best the guru's here look it over and ensure I've not made any errors.

Hello.

The vehicle in question was a hired vehicle. As the lessee, This makes me the keeper for the purpose of definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA" )2012.

I was not the driver at the time of this PCN.

Civil Enforcement Ltd (“CE”) who issued the PCN Failed to adhere to the strict requirements as laid out in schedule 4 of POFA to invoke keeper liability for this PCN. Namely Paragraphs 13 & 14. Please pay special attention to Paragraph 14, section 2a.

By this inability to adhear to POFA; CE have fortified it's right to keeper liability and as the keeper / hirer I challenge the validity of this PCN.

Thank you all so much and happy new year!

KeithP

That will not win.

Have you read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?

You need to spell out in the greatest detail exactly how the PCN issued by CEL is incapable of transferring liability from the driver to the keeper.

You need to supply the evidence - not expecting a PoPLA assessor to go looking for it. They won't do that.

Very brave of you to go with a single point PoPLA appeal.

Again I say, have you seen any of the example PoPLA appeals in the NEWBIES thread?

At least I would also include The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge from the NEWBIES thread.

InFi[D]eL

I suppose it was silly of me to think the people who assess these at POPLA would be familiar with POFA. On their website it asks you to be concise and I was worried being long winded would go not be in my favour.

So a longer message explaining and detailing where CE have failed on the point I highlighted. You say it's brave to go with a single point appeal I was led to believe this one simple breach of protocol would be enough but of course if you see other things I could add then please do say so whilst I continue to read up.