Reply To POPLA CEL

Ammaa

* Sirs


Ref. POPLA appeal 
In response to the "evidence pack" submitted by Civil Enforcement, I ask you assess the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal
* Accordingly Civil Enforcement have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper
* The Notice to Keeper was merely a Reminder and not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) the NTK is not compliant because it has nothing on the back about the POFA of the Reminder which was the first letter received. ( I have attacked Blank page faced up to reflect as much of it as possible)
* The landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'
The start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity
* Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned Civil Enforcement have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.

* Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Civil Enforcement own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic,
* All of the plate numbers showing vehicles that paid, is untrue, there is no means to make payment. These are registered members of the Gym who have registered their plate numbers with the gym
* There is also nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign

* Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Redx

Ammaa wrote: »

Civil Enforcement have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. CEL cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper
* The Notice to Keeper was merely a Reminder and not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) the NTK is not compliant because it has nothing on the back about the POFA of the Reminder which was the first letter received.
* The landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'
The start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity
* Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned Civil Enforcement have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.

* Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Civil Enforcement own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic,
* All of the plate numbers showing vehicles that paid is untrue, there is no means to make payment. These are registered members of the Gym who have registered their plate numbers with the gym
* There is also nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign
* the alleged overstay falls with clause #13 of the BPA CoP as it allows for two grace periods, one either side of the actual parking time

* Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

some alterations made to the above, plus a grace period addition, check that and try to make it concise, stick to the facts , no waffle, check its meets the 2000 character limit too as its still 2200 characters in the above (and you cannot attach photos or anything, its text only)

Ammaa

I felt I had short time to submit as it is due in a few minutes, so I decided to edit it the characters to fit on the POPLA page. whilst editing I mistakenly sent it, and a vital part was cut of; where it’s starts about no payment machine ;

All of the plate numbers showing vehicles that paid, is untrue, there is no means to make payment. These are registered members of the Gym who have registered their plate numbers with the gym
* There is also nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign

* Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Ammaa

The end but got cut off. I hope it’s carries enough weight for cancellation. Thank you for responding to me this late. I appreciate

Redx

correct, it only allows the first 2000 characters, like we told you , you should have been sorting it out in notepad or wordpad (or notepad++) - then copy and paste when complete

and it seems you havent addressed the grace periods issue, which is one of your main appeal points

but if it has been submitted , its too late

Ammaa

The car was parked for 49mims over. I don’t know if that falls within grace?

Coupon-mad

Heck no!

Redx

Ammaa wrote: »

The car was parked for 49mims over. I don’t know if that falls within grace?

post #1 said 12 minutes, hence why I mentioned it

Ammaa wrote: »

In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner.

I only overstayed for 12 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you are asking for, is excessive.

no chance with 49 minutes

Ammaa

Hello everyone,


From my last post, I hvae gotten a reply from POPLAand they did not uphold the decision. Please can I be advised on the next order of action. Thank you.

nosferatu1001

Well showing us the reason why would help. Don't just copy it directly in, add paragraphs.

Newbies thread
Shockingly it covers this situation