CEL POPLA rebuttal draft

LordLordicus

Sent my appeal in following the guides on these forums, I wanted someone to check my operator rebuttal before I submit it (2000 words isn't enough!)

1. Carpark is off a busy dual carriageway with no chance to safety observe entrance signs, by the operators own photographic pack it is obvious how obscure, small and illegible they are from within the carpark.
   
2. The plan and photos provided have no valid date, timestamp, location nor signed, I question the validity of the timestamps as they appear to have been added after the fact, including an image dated 2016.
   
3. No landowner agreement provided by the operator, no location, signature, contracting party, expiry date, does it exsist? The operator is in breach of the BPA CoP re proof of landowner authority.
   
4. No signs within carpark have full t&cs contrary to the BPA CoP.
   
5. CEL is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in BPA CoP. There is no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs/maintenance.The signs also fail to transparently warn what the ANPR data will be used for contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
   
6. CEL evidence shows no actual parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. Since there is no evidence of parked times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a); “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” No image shows a vehicle parked.
   
7. As grace periods (specifically the time taken to locate signs, observe signs, comprehend terms/conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay/leave) are of significant importance in this case(I suggest the time period in question are de minimis from a legal perspective) and the PCN is founded entirely on two unclear images of the vehicle allegedly entering/leaving the car park (15 minutes), with no proof of any maintenance logs of ANPR equipment.

LordLordicus

Any feedback would be appreciated!

Coupon-mad

(2000 words isn't enough!)

You only have 2000 CHARACTERS. Even less!

Forget #5 and #6.

Put this as your first point. Do you mean CEL provided no evidence of landowner authority at all? If so, this will be your winning point:

No landowner agreement provided by the operator, no location, signature, contracting party, expiry date, does it exsist? The operator is in breach of the BPA CoP re proof of landowner authority.

LordLordicus

Yes that's correct, I went though their operator evidence and there is no mention of it at all, let alone a document (I added it as a point in the original popla appeal)

Coupon-mad

Than that's all you need to say!

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.