Online appeal submission to CE Ltd

Dreaming3

Sorry, just a quick query as I have studied the mass of very helpful information on here and will follow the NEWBIES advice. I just have one query at this time.

I have received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd which I have drafted an appeal mainly on the grounds of incorrect VRN entered into the P&D machine. Your advise is to submit the appeal online.

I’ve now removed the question so as to Conceal the drivers identity.



Thanks

Umkomaas

Knowing who the driver was only helps them, not you.

Parking companies are hardly bastions of veracity. Tick 'No'!

But I'm more than a bit concerned about this .....

I have drafted an appeal mainly on the grounds of incorrect VRN entered into the P&D machine.

..... when there is a perfectly adequate one to copy and paste in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1.

Let us see your draft, because you may have put things in there that make the 'Yes/No' option above irrelevant!

Dreaming3

This is my appeal. I used the template but added reasons for the appeal and expanded it a bit. I hope I've got this right. There is so much on here to take in.


I am writing to appeal the above PCN sent to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

The reasons for the appeal are as follows:

1. The facts are that a ticket was bought and this is now enclosed and is being enclosed as proof of payment. From this it is clear that the driver has paid in good faith but has simply keyed in the wrong registration number.

2. The correct payment was made, there was no overstay and no abuse of parking space.

3. The ticket machines should be linked to the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and only allow correct car registration details, or offer the nearest match and ask if it is the correct VRM before accepting the money.

4. There is incomplete narrative relating to terms and conditions on the only Pay & Display machine on the site. In addition, there is nothing on the P&D machine that indicates a penalty will apply if an incorrect vehicle registration number is entered. A close up photograph of the machine is enclosed.

5. The notices on the site do not make it clear that ANPR cameras are in operation or what the data is used for.

6. The terms and conditions notices at the car park are placed so high as to make it difficult for persons to see the T&C small print.


There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

1. With reference to the Pay & Display machine in response to this appeal please supply the data that records payments made during the parking period in question, showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

2. Please explain what quality checks were carried out in this instance since the registration number on the ticket purchased will not match to any car recorded on your ANPR camera data but it will match the last five digits to the ticket purchased, a copy of which is enclosed.

3. Proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the landowner allows this unfair fining.

4. Evidence that the car park clearly advises users that APRN cameras are in operation at the site and what the data is being used for.

As a BPA AOS operator you are required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. I therefore believe that in this instance you are in breach of that Code of Practice Principles.

This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that an in correct VRN will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.

In order to resolve the dispute, I attach a copy of the ticket purchased covering the parking time in question, together with a close-up photocopy of the P&D machine and the Terms & Conditions sign that were at the location at the time.

Should you fail to uphold my appeal then I will also appeal to POPLA. I note that in their recently issued Annual Report page 6 and 7 specific reference is made to simple keying errors and that from a “fairness perceptive refusing an appeal does not always feel righ where a motorist has paid for their parking..” and that the BPA had written to members in October 2017 to ask them to put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to focus on effective car park management rather than mistake punishment. They also suggested that members consider cancelling charges which had been caused by a simple keying error. I trust you will follow this guidance.

If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further, I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Formal note:

Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,

Dreaming3

Hi. Can anyone advise if the draft appeal to CEL above is ok to send please or do I just need to send the Mewbies template without amendment? I was hoping expanding it a bit might get the charge cancelled at first appeal stage.

Umkomaas

or do I just need to send the Mewbies template without amendment?

Send the NEWBIES one.

I was hoping expanding it a bit might get the charge cancelled at first appeal stage.

And there was me, wondering how you decided on your username.

KeithP

I'm with Umkomaas.

The PPC won't even bother to read to the end of your appeal.

Dreaming3

As expected, my appeal to CE Ltd was rejected. With all the good help on this forum 9thank you everyone) I have now drafted my POPLA appeal. Would someone be kind enough to review it for me please? I will try to upload the photographs too but so far I am having difficulty with that. Also, the text was too long so I am putting the end half of the appeal on the next post.


Sirs,

I appeal as the keeper of VRN XXXX XXX, to the PCN as above which was issued to me by Civil Enforcement Ltd on 7 December 2018. I initially appealed against this to CE Ltd on 17 December 2018 and they have subsequently upheld their PCN by letter dated 21 December 2018. Consequently, they have advised that I have a right to appeal to POPLA.

A copy of the parking ticket purchased by the driver for the period that the car was parked at the car park was included as part of the appeal to CE Ltd. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid for the period parked, there was no overstay or other parking infringement and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

I contend that I, as keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking change and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Car Parking Ticket Purchased
2. Not Fit for Purpose Invalid Ticket issued contrary to Consumer Rights Act 2015
3. Inadequate signage
4. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice Principles
5. No landowner authority
6. Information Commissioner’s Office Code of Conduct for Surveillance
7. Parking Ticket Machine function/accuracy

In support of this appeal, in addition to the comments, below I enclose the following:

• Copy of parking ticket purchased
• Photograph of sign to right of car park entrance
• Photograph of parking machine screen
• Photograph of parking machine showing sign above
• Copy of Beavis case sign
• Photograph of sign on high pole
• Email from landowner confirming PCN cancellation

1. CAR PARKING TICKET PURCHASED

As stated above, I am the keeper of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked on private land in Worksop, Nottinghamshire where CE Ltd manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. A parking ticket was purchased (see copy of ticket attached) for the time the car was parked on the land. The car was parked correctly in a parking bay so there was no abuse of parking space, no overstay and no loss to the owner.
The car registration number on the ticked shows “xxxxxxx”. The registration number of my car is “xxxxxxx”. When comparing the two VRNs the first two digits of the registration number on the ticket is slightly different to my car registration number. The remaining five digits are the same.

The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent to CE Ltd as proof and it was clear that the driver had paid in good faith but had either simply keyed in the first two characters of the vehicle registration number indorectly or the machine had recorded the wrong vehicle registration number.

I would suggest that the initial appeal to CE Ltd was not properly considered. It appears a template response has been received since no mention in their response is made regarding the parking ticket that was purchased and attached to the appeal. I note that the POPLA Annual Report December 2018 specifically mentions concerns that operators were not properly considering appeals in the first instance and I believe that this is a case in question. Accordingly, I believe the appeal was dismissed without CE Ltd having done due diligence or scrutiny of details especially since the response letter was dated only two working days after my appeal to them was submitted. I find it hard to believe that proper scrutiny of all the facts and their data would have only taken two days. I believe the term for such conduct is “robo-claims”, which is against the public interest, demonstrates it is unfair and disrespectful on drivers parking on private land
Again, specifically with reference to simple keying errors as highlighted in the POPLA Annual Report, CE Ltd has ignored the British Parking Association advice sent to them in October 2017 reminding them to “put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to focus on effective car park management rather than mistake punishment”. The British Parking Association suggested that its operators considered cancelling Parking Charge Notices where it was clear that the parking charge had been caused by a simple keying error.

The BPA Code of Practice at 21.2 specifically requires operators who use camera number plate recognition “…. must carry out a manual quality check of the APNR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action”. In this instance CE Ltd have failed to abide by the Code in that a manual check with the number plate to the ticket issued would have identified the number plate error. CE Ltd would know exactly which VRN was the correct data out of the two partial mismatches, because they used the ANPR image data stream to rely on to get the registered keeper's name & address from the DVLA - giving the DVLA the CORRECT VRN, yet blaming the driver for their keypad inexplicably showing a slightly different and therefore unmatched VRN on the ticket.
To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine parking customer who did pay the correct parking fee is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'. Their own ANPR records should show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN as shown on the ticket and in support of my appeal, I was able to produce the ticket as proof that payment was made but that a minor error occurred with the VRN, thereby showing that THIS ticket did relate to THIS vehicle and no other in the carpark.

The BPA CoP contains the following paragraph in paragraph 21:

“Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by the ANPR cameras for.”
CE Ltd fail to tell drivers that the ANPR data will be compared to any VRNs input into the Pay machine and will then be used to issue 'parking charges' for any case where there is a VRN omission or error. If the driver had known this vital fact, I am sure they would have thought twice before inputting the VRN in error, if indeed it was driver input error. As the driver did not know this, they cannot be deemed bound by the terms.
Therefore, the argument is, CE Ltd knew all along which VRN data was correct and that the keypad data was inaccurate and that a parking fee had therefore been paid.


2. NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE INVALID TICKET ISSUED CONTRARY TO CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015

The reason given by CE Ltd for the PCN penalty is that “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage”. Due to the sparseness of particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the penalty charge was issued, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability or trespass. However, it is denied that the driver entered into any contractual agreement with the CE Ltd, whether express, implied or by conduct.

The parking ticket that was issued from the parking machine was an invalid ticket. This ticket was bought and paid for in good faith. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 any goods purchased should be 'Fit for Purpose'. The ticket that was issued was not 'fit for purpose'. CE Ltd therefore took the money to issue an invalid ticket and now want to charge a penalty of £100 for having an invalid ticket. The invalid ticket was issued due to the ticket machine allowing the transaction to complete when an invalid Vehicle Registration Number was entered for a car that was not in the car park. The ticket machine should not have issued the ticket since the machine should be linked to the APRN cameras and only allow correct details, or offer the nearest match and ask if it is the correct VRM before accepting the money. There are other parking operators that have systems that do not allow entry of numbers where a vehicle with that registration was not present.

It is also true that CE Ltd will have had an entry on their system showing that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonable be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.

Since the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by the CPA Code of Practice recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.

In addition, Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 specifically refers to unfair terms and conditions and specifically at 62. (4):

“A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.”

Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.

I would assert that in an instance where payment has been made for parking, where a car has parked correctly and no overstay has occurred, then the penalty (of £100) term under the CE Ltd T&C’s is certainly unfair and is not binding on the consumer.

Again, I note that in the POPLA recently issued Annual Report 2018 page 6 and 7 specific reference is made to simple keying errors and that from a “fairness perceptive refusing an appeal does not always feel right where a motorist has paid for their parking.” This POPLA comment concurs with the assertion that the use of the penalty T&C in this case would be an “unfair term” under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and should therefore not be binding.


3. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as keeper, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule print size of the £sum, which does NOT appear on the parking machine at all and neither does it appear at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the penalty sum of £100) to the attention of the motorist.

3.1 Entrance Sign

Upon entering the car park, a driver would not be able to see the sign to the right of the entrance ramp. (See photograph of sign). The drive into the car park is a very short distance across a public pavement from a busy main road and up a ramp. This manoeuvre would require the driver’s total concentration and the driver would have no time or opportunity to read this entrance sign. In any event, if approaching from the left the sign would not be visible at all.

Even if a driver could read the entrance sign the fact that cameras are in operation at the car park is not mentioned. The wording at the bottom of the sign (in much smaller print size than the rest of the sign) shows “Site managed using ANPR and manual patrols…”. The word “camera” is not included. I am a pensioner and until receiving the Penalty Charge Notice I had no idea what the letters ANPR stood for.


3.2 Sign on the ticket machine

The CE Ltd signage should set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a full correct VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons at the time of ticket purchase.

There is nothing on the parking machine to suggest that an error in entering the VRN would incur a parking charge of £100. (see photograph of ticket machine screen). Indeed, there is no reference at all to a penalty for any parking infringement or any reference to ANPR cameras and what the data collected by the cameras will be used for. A reasonable person would expect that such important information relating to cameras and the huge £100 penalty to be prominent on the face of the ticket machine.

The machine instructions to users shows “Enter registration number”. This does not say “Enter exact registration number”. Nor does it say that a £100 penalty will apply should the exact registration number not be entered. There should be a sign on the machine that says all characters from your VRN must be entered in full and exact. There are many car park ticket machines that require the last three character only to be entered. It would not be unreasonable for someone using the CE Ltd machine to not input the full or exact VRN.

Why are the machine instructions conspicuous by the absence of any warning, at the very point of transaction/sale, about the risk of a £100 parking charge for not managing a full VRN input, however caused?


3.3 Sign above the ticket machine

The tariffs are listed in a sign above the machine in large print size. However, this sign is at a height of almost 3 meters (see photograph attached) with the T&C’s being in very small print compared with the tariff print. I would suggest that there is no ‘Red Hand Rule’ style warning (as explained by Lord Denning) giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce ‘a pitfall or trap’ that leads to a hidden penalty.

In Spurling v Bradshaw it was ruled that “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.” I would suggest that a £100 penalty for a minor error with a VRN could certainly amount to an “unreasonable clause” as in this case. No prominence at all is given to the £100 penalty since it is in the same print size and colour as the rest of the small print T&C’s notice with the tariffs being in the much larger prominent print size.

Therefore, I would suggest that there was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

In the Beavis case (a copy of the sign is attached), the £85 charge itself was in the largest print size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

In this case, by comparison, it does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

.3.4 Other Signs

There are other signs within the car park area. However, these are all placed on poles or on a wall and at such a height (some 2.9 metres) as to make it very difficult to read the much smaller print size of the T&C’s. (see photograph attached). Letters will always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall or pole. Again, it is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice. These signs do not clearly mention the penalty charge which is hidden in small print. The sum of the penalty charge itself is not in large lettering so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past or could read a legible sign that indicated the consequences of a VRN error.

Therefore, this small print on the sign showing the terms and the penalty charge and placed high on a wall or pole is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms, especially if the driver is below average height.
A Notice is not important into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Since the signs did not have prominent terms, I suggest that there cannot be a contract established with terms that the driver agreed to or that are “breached” in this instance.

4. BREACH OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE PRINCIPLES

CE Ltd have chosen to participate in the POPLA ombudsman/dispute resolution service but are failing to adhere to the British Parking Association Code of Practice and the guidance that it issues for its members.

This is an inappropriate parking charge which should have been cancelled on appeal. Operation and enforcement is not just about issuing PCNs and collecting money from hapless victims, regardless of any legitimate interest, reasonableness or appropriateness. In fact the BPA CoP mentions in the Introduction 'minimum standards' (suggesting they are set low) as well as the importance of 'acting in a professional, reasonable and diligent way' in issuing 'appropriate' parking charges:

By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which they will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with them. Members of the public should be able to expect that they will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.

The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:

• designing and using signs
• using ANPR and associated systems
• appropriate parking charges.

As a BPA operator CE Ltd are required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. In their rejection letter, CE Ltd have failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone. I require that the CE Ltd provides a copy of their policy on manual checking and proof that those checks were made in this instance I therefore believe that in this instance they are in breach of that Code of Practice Principles.

Under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they:

(a) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

(b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for.

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles

21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

I submit in this case it cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs and there is nothing at all on the ticket machine, that an incorrect VRN will be compared to the ANPR data for imposing a penalty charge.

Cameras are in operation at this car park but you do not know this until after you have entered the car park and only then if you are able to read the small print of the T&C’s. Even if the driver saw the sign to the right side of the entrance (and it is disputed that the driver would have been able to see this sign) there is no mention of cameras. The letters “ANPR” alone on this sign are meaningless to many people unless explained fully.

The important and mandatory information regarding the fact that ANPR cameras are used for enforcement purposes in the terms and conditions on other signs, are in such a small print at the very bottom of the signage that is placed at such a height as to make it unreadable. They are not detailed at all on the ticket machine at the point of sale/ticket purchase.

The T&C do not state specifically that the ANPR images will be compared to data from the ticket machine for the purpose of issuing a £100 penalty. It is therefore denied that the signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

Dreaming3

This follows on from above.


6. INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SURVEILLANCE

Some interesting points arise from use of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) - see section 7.1. and in particular this:

“When storing the information and cross referencing it with other databases to identify individuals, you will need to ensure that these databases are kept up-to-date and accurate and are of sufficient quality to prevent mismatches”

So if the camera takes personal data (registration) and stores it to then cross reference with the registrations inputted, I would argue that:

(a) an accurate, quality system would be able to marry up the 5 correct letters that were inputted

(a) that to require more than 5 accurate letters was, in any event, to process more personal data than reasonably required to check for payment

As there are very few cars in this small car park at the same time as the parking event I find it highly unlikely that there were multiple vehicles with the same 5 last letters.


7. NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

CE Ltd is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As CE Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what CE Ltd is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner of the site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put CE Ltd to strict proof of full compliance:

Section 7.2 says that if the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

Section 7.3 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 signse the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I would like to see the proof that CE Ltd has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in such instances as I am sure any reasonable landowner would not wish to penalise car park users in this manner and especially since it would harm their reputation. It is also hard to believe that the landowner would support the ticketing of fee-paying car park users, thus risking further revenue. Also there is no deterrent value, because the user has already paid, so there is nothing to deter.
I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the landowner allows this unfair fining of paying car park users. I suspect that ''wrong VRN' is not in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention'. If it is not in the contract it is not a contravention that can give rise to a penalty.
Indeed, I wrote to the landowner to complain about this penalty charge and the landowner agreed to cancel the PCN if I had not already appealed to CE Ltd. Unfortunately, an appeal had been lodged prior to the receipt of this email. (copy attached).
Further, I would put CE Ltd to strict proof of compliance specifically with relation to incorrect VRN, keying errors, machine errors and not just a general redacted contract about entering a registration number in a terminal.

As regards to the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts, an agent or landowner must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'.


7. PARKING TICKET MACHINE FUNCTION/ACCUARCY
CE Ltd have provided no evidence that the parking ticket machine system is reliable. This is important since this case revolves around the first two characters of a seven-character VRN. We do not know whether the VRN error has been caused by a faulty machine such as “sticky keys” or if this was simply human error. In their appeal rejection letter CE Ltd have provided no comments regarding the parking ticket that was submitted to them as proof of payment. Therefore it is impossible to determine if they even considered the ticket at all as part of their appeal process and as previously stated I suspect they did not.
CE Ltd has not provided any evidence at all to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.


SUMMARY

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' in this case so the PCN should have been cancelled. I submit that to pursue a genuine car park customer who paid is contrary to the wishes of the landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately refusing my appeal.

Instead of putting it right at appeal stage because they knew that payment did not match any other car in the car park (and there was enough there to know 'on the balance of probabilities' that it related to my car) they used the data mismatch to blame the keeper and try to profit from the keeper a hundredfold for what was a mere £1.50 parking fee that had in fact been paid.

To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine parking customer who did pay is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'. Their own ANPR records should show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN on the ticket purchased and submitted in the appeal to CE Ltd, thereby proving that THIS ticket did relate to my vehicle and no other in the car park.
This case is an unfair, unenforceable penalty and differs from the 'ParkingEye v Beavis' judgment in every single fact, from signage to the rationale/justification of the charge.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet, not for any operator and not for CE Ltd. That case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule IN THAT CASE ONLY. It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals.

The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Courts would consider the disproportionate charge in this case to be the very essence of 'unconscionable' due to the circumstances of the case. It is a clear penalty because it is just that, punitive, with no other compelling commercial rationale nor even unambiguous evidence to support its imposition. The penalty rule remains engaged and parking charges are not 'properly given' if they are merely punishing an alleged (denied) breach but remain unjustified by way of any other legitimate commercial interests.

While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a 'free stay' car park, essentially as a deterrent to overstaying, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 penalty is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple problem of a VRN error which was explained and accompanied in good faith at appeal stage by proof of payment. In any event a wrong VRN is trivia and courts will not be interested in dealing with trivia.

This is a simple case of incorrect VRN and I therefore request that POPLA uphold this appeal.




Signed…..

Dated...

Umkomaas

This is a simple case of incorrect VRN and I therefore request that POPLA uphold this appeal.

Guaranteed loss at POPLA. They will state that the PCN was correctly issued - we've seen it too many times. Even simple o/0 mistype is a reject. You need to get right away from that as your main thrust.

You've got two appeal sections #7.

I've not read back through the entire thread nor the ~5,500 words of your appeal (nobody does that these days) - but is there any scope for a No Keeper Liability/PoFA failure on NtK content or dates of issue?

Dreaming3

Oh dear, no there is no scope at all as they were in the required timescale and the PCN has all the correct information on it. Have you any other suggestions? This took me ages

MistyZ

Are you sure the PCN is POFA compliant? Check the wording on the PCN against the relevant sections of POFA.

In any case POPLA may still be worth a punt. POPLA are not entirely predictable and you'd do well to keep all the standard sections that may apply such as Landowner Authority which sometimes comes up trumps.

There is always the chance that CEL will come back with 'no contest'. Though a quick search here suggested that's more likely with very solid grounds for appeal.

One thing .... can you edit your original post to conceal driver's identity? Best to accept that the parking companies do not play fair and have been known to lurk here as well as realising that they can be flaky as well as malicious which could result in a nice surprise.