Civil Enforcment LTD KFC Hyde

SBTVZ

Hi there everybody! im just looking at some guidance. recently got a letter through the post from said company for a parking fine at KFC Hyde Manchester. I literally can't even remember it ever happening, but more to the point something has been fishy with this letter since it has arrived. Upon Noticing the first letter i immediately noticed the cars drl's on the car in the image was switched on, but i couldnt tell properly, So in hindsite i let that one slide for now. It also stated that it was parked there between 9.30 and 9.43 which we will come to in a moment.

So anyway i was literally for the sake of it just going to pay it but i really dont want to give the scum the satisfaction. So i made the decison to find a way to fight this and behold i found my self upon you lovely people!

So after the first letter i received from them, i sent the template from the noobies thread and awaited the reply back.

Today it finaly shows up saying they have rejected it (Maximum 90 minutes free parking between 10am and 10pm, no parking at all other times) heres your popla number.
But heres were the differences in the pictures and times change from what they sent me originally. They sent a bigger picture this time of the one they provided in the first of said car which definley looks to me that the drl's was switched on and it looks like sombody is in the car also. It also states the car was in there for 14 seconds too which is very strange.

Anyway i am now stuck on what to send these maggots were do i go from here?? am i thinking more into this then i should or what? if you wonderful people could guide me then i would be very thankful!



Thankyou in advance!


hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/2ekhllk.jpg
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2hfqff8.jpg
hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/2gvugxv.jpg
hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/308a9dz.jpg

Fruitcake

What are drl lights, and why do you think them being on is significant?

Edit your post to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.

Read post 3 of the NEWBIES and construct a draft appeal using all the relevant template points you will find there. Post your draft here before submitting it.

You can post redacted images here by uploading them to a web hosting site such as postimages, tinypic, or similar, then paste the URL here but change http to hxxp. Someone here will change it back to live links for you.

What happened when you complained to the landowner/KFC manager/CEO?

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam.

fisherjim

Sorry but your rambling post is just confusing, why not state:


1, What they are claiming the driver did wrong
2 Why you say they are wrong
3 What evidence they have
4 What evidence you have


Also follow Fruitcake's advice.

SBTVZ

Hi sorry for not being more clear but thanks for the replies, i have added the pictures now.

They are claiming Maximum 90 minutes free parking between 10am and 10pm, no parking at all other times.

The evidance they have is a picture of the car with the lights on which to me proves the driver was still in the car if i am not mistaken?
Sorry if i confused you

Fruitcake

SBTVZ wrote: »

Hi sorry for not being more clear but thanks for the replies.
i have added the pictures now



they are claiming Maximum 90 minutes free parking between 10am and 10pm, no parking at all other times.


the evidance they have is a picture of the car with the lights on which to me proves the driver was still in the car if i am not mistaken?

I still do not see the significance of this.


http://i68.tinypic.com/2ekhllk.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/2hfqff8.jpg
http://i67.tinypic.com/2gvugxv.jpg
http://i67.tinypic.com/308a9dz.jpg

SBTVZ

Fruitcake wrote: »

I still do not see the significance of this.

How can they fine somebody for parking when the evidance they have looks like somebody could just be turning around? like i said i might be over thinking it. Also one letter says 13 mins the other says 14 seconds so maybe they dont have a clue either or it was a typo lol

Fruitcake

SBTVZ wrote: »

How can they fine somebody for parking when the evidance they have looks like somebody could just be turning around? like i said i might be over thinking it

It is not a fine.

They are unregulated.

As I said, appeal to PoPLA using all the points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES. Get your own pics of the signs to support your appeal.

Inadequate signage, forbidding signs, non PoFA compliant NTK, grace periods (note the plural), not the landowner, no standing to issue charges to name but a few.

You didn't tell us what happened when you complained.

The_Deep

It is not a fine., it is an invoice for the damage they allege they suffered when. allegedly, you breached an alleged contract, we call it a scam so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

SBTVZ

They really are worms, sorry if i confused any of you. All this forum lark and complaining is really new to me i will try put something together on popla and let my local mp know what i think of these merchants....

Redx

I know this car park very well and it has 3 car park regimes on it , SIP , TMBC & CEL

the KFC is on the third car park and is monitored by CEL , and the car park can only be used when KFC is open, so its forbidding signage at all other times , it is adjacent to KFC

reading through the waffle it seems that a driver was ON SITE (parked) for 13 minutes , which is 3 minutes longer than allowed under the BPA CoP, at a time when the business was not open


doesnt matter if the vehicle is parked , stationary , occupied or unoccupied, it was on site , so the driver should have departed sooner, when they knew that KFC was not open


the driver could not have been a patron of KFC because it wasnt open for business , so I doubt that a complaint to KFC will help


nobody cares if the driver was in the vehicle or not


if you have a popla code , appeal to popla on forbidding and misleading signage , no landowner authority , grace periods etc


if CEL failed POFA 2012 include that too (as long as the driver was not identified) - ie:- no keeper liability

Coupon-mad

You haven't said if the PCN has the POFA para 9(2)f wording on the back, usually hidden in the Appeals paragraph?

You can check that yourself; don't ask us - tell us - and did it arrive by day 15?

If not then you can use 'no keeper liability', plus all the usual stuff from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, plus the fact that (if this was 9 in the morning?) the driver went in to see if KFC was open yet and found it didn't open till 10am. The car was only captured for just over the minimum 10 minute grace period and the reason for the extra 2/3 mins is accounted for by virtue of the fact the driver not only had to read & understand the terms on CEL's high up signs, but also walked over to the KFC and tried the door, read the opening hours, and decided to leave and return later on.

This only took a few minutes and was perfectly reasonable conduct, and this event did NOT involve leaving the car parked, merely the activity needed to check all the terms and the opening hours too, then leave.

No contract was accepted, not only that, no contract was even on offer, by CEL's own admission in their signage and rejection letter which admits there is NO parking licence except after 10am.

No parking licence on offer - no contract, only trespass at best, which the ParkingEye v Beavis case held was only a matter for a landowner and could not be pleaded by a parking firm not in possession.

Thus, POPLA cannot conclude that this PCN under 'contract' was properly given.