Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) – POPLA Appeal Advice

Han_Solo

Coupon-mad said:

I'd argue that second para on the back is directed only at vehicle hire companies.  I think some Judges would agree.  I'd stick with it not being compliant.

Fair point, it's not very clear. I will update accordingly. Thanks.

Han_Solo

I've adjusted item 16 as advised by @Coupon-mad.

Any comments regarding my additions to the template (items 17, 17.x, 18.1 and 18.2)?

The link again:
[REMOVED]

Thanks

Redx

Most people on here will not download files from unknown sources

You should post those proposed paragraphs below like you see in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6174401/template-defence-questions#latest

That way more people may read them and comment

Han_Solo

Redx said:

Most people on here will not download files from unknown sources

You should post those proposed paragraphs below like you see in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6174401/template-defence-questions#latest

That way more people may read them and comment

Thank you, I was unaware. For information it is not necessary to download the file because a preview is shown in your browser.

Regardless, these are the items I have been referring to with respect to the abuse of process template:
#16. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the POFA.

#17. The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was not authorised to use the car park based on images captured by ANPR camera at the entrance and exit of the site. These images merely show the vehicle in transit and in no way prove a lack of authorisation or that the driver was not a patron of the Fox@Connaught bar.
#17.1. The Defendant has previously provided proof of patronage (a credit card statement), acknowledged by the Claimant. The Claimant has never contested that the driver was a patron.
#17.2. The Claimant has been engaged by the landowner to promote use of the car park by patrons only. The driver was a patron, and so parked in good faith. No misuse of the parking facilities occurred.
#17.3. Given that the car park is provided free-of-charge for patrons, it is not unreasonable to assume an implied right to park in return for patronage. This right is reinforced by the fact that the Claimant does not validate the vehicle registration numbers submitted by patrons at the time of input or any time thereafter (by evidence of a purchase receipt as seen in many supermarket parking regimes, for example). This suggests that the request for a vehicle registration number is not integral to the permit process, but for record keeping purposes only.

#18.1. The information stated is inaccurate because the signs refer to “Connaught Hotel” only, a distinct entity from the Fox@Connaught bar that is open to the public whether a guest of the hotel or not. The terms state that permits are to be obtained at the hotel’s reception, further implying that they are only necessary for hotel guests that wish to park a vehicle overnight.
#18.2. The permit that is alluded to on the Claimant’s signage does not describe in sufficient detail what form it takes and how it should be obtained, specifically there is no reference to the need to input one’s vehicle registration number into a tablet.

Comments on the items above would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Looks great!

Han_Solo

Coupon-mad said:

Looks great!

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I really appreciate your efforts with the template it's very helpful and reduces the time required to prepare a defence. My thanks also to all the other forum members that have contributed so far.

My deadline for submitting a defence is Wednesday 12th August, but I intend to submit a day or two early so that I'm not caught out by the website going down (or similar). I'm happy to consider any further comments until then.

KeithP

Han_Solo said:

My deadline for submitting a defence is Wednesday 12th August, but I intend to submit a day or two early so that I'm not caught out by the website going down (or similar).

Just checking... you are intending to file your Defence as an email attachment, aren't you?

Han_Solo

KeithP said:

Just checking... you are intending to file your Defence as an email attachment, aren't you?

Yes, although I need to confirm the correct address.

For the avoidance of doubt: because I am submitting a defence via email there is no need to also complete the defence form via MCOL, correct?

KeithP

Han_Solo said:

KeithP said:

Just checking... you are intending to file your Defence as an email attachment, aren't you?

Yes, although I need to confirm the correct address.

For the avoidance of doubt: because I am submitting a defence via email there is no need to also complete the defence form via MCOL, correct?

Follow the links already given for the CCBC's email address.

No need to do anything on MCOL other than the checking suggested in the supplied linked instructions.

Coupon-mad

Please don't touch MCOL to submit ANYTHING from now on.