PCN from Civil Enforcement "CE" - Now at POPLA

KeithP

Here is a twenty-nine page illustrated PopLA appeal linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread:

www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0

You really must read all of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and study all the appeal points linked from there.

There are lots of points you could include and it is for you to decide whether or not to include them in your appeal.

InFi[D]eL

Please do not think it's because I'm lazy. I am trying but it's just so much information and so convoluted it's very hard for me to attain and collect what I actually need. The first stage of doing this when writing to CE to contest took me half a day to just be confident in what I sent them and now I'm needing to do it all again but 10 fold.

InFi[D]eL

I need to take a rest till tomorrow; but so far these are the points I want to put into my appeal and would appreciate it if I could get a nod or a no to any/all of them.

Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance
The PCN shows the vehicle entering and leaving in under 16 mins. I'd like to argue enough time was not afforded to allow the vehicle driver at the time of the supposed incident time to read and understand the terms of service. Bit of a stretch at 16 mins but worth a go I thought.

The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself/

I'll be checking this one first. I can not confirm if I've ever visited this particular area but it is my intention to check if I can use any or all of the above points and have some photo's if so.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

The baseline standard I suppose is this one. I thought I could use this and go into the lack of a NTK being issued as required. TO be honest I could copy what's in the very helpful dropbox link provided by KeithP.

No Evidence of Landowner Authority-the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

This one just to make CE even more likely to want to drop it by making it more tedious?

No Evidence of Period Parked–NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements

I like this one; the PCN only shows the vehicle at the car park entrance, apparently arriving and leaving. There's no evidence of the vehicle actually being parked. BUT IMPORTANT I did not get a NTK remember; so can I still use this one by changing it to PCN does not meet POFA requirements?

Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance

I also saw this one in the dropbox link provided by KeithP. I t intrigued me so I'm going to try and research what these requirements are. You can see almost all the vehicle but little else and do appear cropped. Again demanding the original unedited images could be another way to put CE off perhaps?

The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Again from the dropbox, Another way to encourage CE to give up by wasting there time to insist on maintenance records or demonstrate proper functionality of the ANPR system at the time of the PCN? Is there a legal or formal requirement for these things to be checked and singed off on? Something similar to an electronic PAT test?

Failure for the signs to transparently Warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

Again will need to check the signs first but assuming the above holds true could I throw this one in too? Don't they have to declare if personal data is to be used for commercial intent which a PCN would qualify as commercial intent or intent of gain, right?

InFi[D]eL

Update:

I have now pretty much completed my POPLA draft. It's taken me sometime to compile the info I wanted to use and I'd like to thank everyone for their help thus far and those who have submitted previously winning appeals for us to look at.

I have a redacted draft which removes indication of location, dates, times etc so it can be shared publicly. I do think it best it win before it be put in public though but with that in mind would someone be willing to look it over in private? I've found this process pretty difficult to grasp and I'd really appreciate a more informed eye cast over it.

Thank you.

nosferatu1001

Just post it here
More eyes the better.

InFi[D]eL

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vvmRFClIToMcJ3N3hqfPQmoBLwFFGILV0pqumDkfnh0/edit?usp=sharing

InFi[D]eL

Well I hope it's good; because I realised I was near out of time on this. I've fixed a couple of mistakes and submitted it. *fingers crossed*