Civil Enforcement LTD POPLA Stage

DownScammers

Hi all,


I received a PCN this month regarding my car being parked and "Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on the signage." after following the initial steps as set out on the 'Newbie Thread' and having used the template provided, I have received a POPLA code.

I have seen the POPLA templates within the aforementioned thread and will be constructing my defence over the coming days.

I've created this thread because; in addition to posting my draft defence when completed, I want to ask a few questions.

1. The photographic evidence sent by CE-LTD is... lacking to say the least. At the time the Sun had since set so it was rather dark, and the pictures show the headlights of a car but the numberplate is entirely in shadow and thus unreadable (there are the little pictures showing the plate separately but ONLY the plate, easily faked ect). Is this a point I should bring up in my defence?
2. I will be collecting pictures of the supposed signage in the same lighting conditions (read: in darkness) as to when my car was present. Should I include them in my defence?
3. In another thread the OP asks: "the wording CEL do not adhere to POFA 2012, is this still the case? If so is it neccesary to have an additional case point for this?" The wording is quite poor so I'm confused as to what is being asked and thus if it would have any relevance to my own defence.

- Thanks

Coupon-mad

I have received a POPLA code.

I have seen the POPLA templates within the aforementioned thread and will be constructing my defence over the coming days.

It is not a defence when you are at POPLA appeal stage. So copy another similar POPLA appeal and show us, or use the template points from the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. Not the defence examples.

It is VITAL for us to know whether this is a new-style CEL PCN, where they have the POFA warning about keeper liability on the back (it's either there or it isn't, any newbie can check).

If it is, then your POPLA appeal will concentrate on no landowner authority, and unlit signs/no contract agreed in the dark.

DownScammers

That was my mis wording; at least you knew what I meant by it.


There's a section that reads:
"This notice was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, if you fail to provide the full, correct name of the driver and their current address for service you may become liable for the full amount due as the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle."
I'm guessing this is the POFA warning about keeper liability but I am no expert; hence my coming to this forum.

Coupon-mad

No it's the other bit about 29 days.

DownScammers

No where upon either side of either page is there a reference to '29/Twenty Nine days' . The only time in days that is stated is the piece about 28 days to appeal via POPLA.

Redx

so the wording required by the law called POFA2012 is absent, in which case it fails the POFA legal test, so a keeper isnt liable


you would think that after over 6 years they would get it right, clearly not, which is a legal argument in your favour (a technicality)

Coupon-mad

No the bit on the back that talks about 'beginning with the day after the PCN was given'' or similar.

DownScammers

As I said, the only reference to an amount of days is the '28 days from the letter date to appeal via POPLA' .



As it appears there is no POFA warning about keeper liability beyond what I've already posted, what thread (and where on said thread) should I look at for information on this?

Coupon-mad

It says 28 days (and is correct) and is there under the hearing 'PAYMENT' like in this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75086870#Comment_75086870

I disagree that the new CEL CPN is not a POFA one. I say (where it arrives in time) it is.

DownScammers

On the back of the PCN (I was looking through their subsequent correspondence...) it does indeed show exactly the same as the one in the link.



Therefore my appeal will 'concentrate on no landowner authority, and unlit signs/no contract agreed in the dark'?


I'm sorry I got muddled up but I've never encountered any of this before.

Redx

having looked at the pictures linked in that thread, they added it into the paragraph just above where it says appeals , on the back of the NTK

they should have had it as a new paragraph but it is there in that example , buried under the HIRE VEHICLE part

in which case if they fulfilled the timeline and have that paragraph, they seem to have fulfilled POFA2012 requirements, a new one for them after 6 years of non-compliance


yes, concentrate on the other issues