Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) – POPLA Appeal Advice

Coupon-mad

What about these two points for CEL POPLA appeals (search the forum for those words)

5. Non POFA PCN and the driver has not been identified, and
6. the appellant is the keeper and has not been shown to be the individual liable.

Han_Solo

Thanks. I understand NTKs from CEL have not conformed to POFA in the past, however they are learning because the one received appears to be compliant with the points described in paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 (Schedule 4). That's why I haven't included those arguments in the appeal document.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What about these two points for CEL POPLA appeals (search the forum for those words)

5. Non POFA PCN and the driver has not been identified, and
6. the appellant is the keeper and has not been shown to be the individual liable.

Han_Solo

I have now submitted the appeal. I will update here once I receive POPLA's decision.

Han_Solo

CEL have submitted their response to the appeal. A redacted version:
dropbox.com/s/ua69yoodkxrn4yj/CEL_response_redacted.pdf?dl=0

These are the comments I intend to submit:
dropbox.com/s/27d26qt1z2ovwx1/Driver_comments.pdf?dl=0

I've tried to be succinct as the initial appeal was quite thorough and I don't think CEL have raised any significant points beyond that.

Constructive comments welcome.

Thanks.

Castle

Did CEL include a copy of their contract with the landowner?

Han_Solo

No, not the full contract, but they did include a confirmation of authority within their submission (it's on another page, not included in the linked file). As mentioned in my comments, the title of the signatory is not present. I don't know if that's significant, but thought I should mention it as it means their authority to sign is unclear.

Castle wrote: »

Did CEL include a copy of their contract with the landowner?

Coupon-mad

Electronic permits may be obtained by entering your vehicle registration on one of the touchscreens

Have CEL showed an image proving the touchcreen (that CEL provide, not the hotel) was even at Reception? It is wrong to say it is only a matter for the Hotel Manager whether/how they bring the touchscreen to patrons' attention, given that this keypad is actually supplied by CEL and there is no evidence it was even there, AND providing clear instructions and a prominent and easy to see/use mechanism to exempt themselves, that was 'bound to be seen' is a fundamental part of CEL's contract with a hotel patron!

There is no proof that this keypad existed and/or was 'bound to be seen' (Beavis case).

The list purporting to show VRNs entered by Hotel patrons that day is unreliable because (you choose/add to this list of possibles):

- this is a word document created in May 2019, that anyone at CEL can create

- there is nothing to evidence that it is the record from that site/that day

- it is not signed off as a true copy from the machine, nor a screenshot of data

Castle

Han_Solo wrote: »

No, not the full contract, but they did include a confirmation of authority within their submission.

So I'm guessing there's no mention of touchscreen(s) in the "confirmation of authority"?

Han_Solo

Thanks Coupon-mad and Castle.

I'm afraid I got a little impatient and submitted my comments on Sunday evening. I had to trim them further because I mistakenly thought the limit was 2000 words when it is in fact 2000 characters!

I will keep the points you raise in mind in case this drags on further, but I hope common sense will prevail.

As ever, thanks for the advice.

Coupon-mad

There will be no common sense; you shouldn't have rushed this. Best of luck.