CEL POPLA Evidence Pack - Rebut Comments, any advice please?

NiJella

***Please note...Post edited to remove links to case documents, following the kind advice of fellow forumers, sincerest apologies for any inconvenience to anyone reading this wishing to look at the case details, feel free to message me directly***

Hi, Amazing Forumers!

Apologies for posting a new thread if similar is elsewhere, I have spent several hours reading all sorts across the forum: it's incredible and invaluable.

I have until 3rd July to comment on the PPC's 'evidence pack.' I have made a start after reading up on the forums, I am struggling a bit and wondered if at a glance anyone can highlight any glaring rebuttals or points to help my case please? I'm very much a newbie so any help is greatly appreciated.

The PPC are inaccurate as in the evidence pack the PPC refers to me at different points as both female (point 12) and male (point 15). They also state in point 12 that the appellant has admitted to being the driver[/I], at no time have I admitted to being the driver, corresponding only as the keeper!

I had inserted the individual links to each document however the forum wont allow it as I am a newbie. Therefore please head to:

***Link removed***

Where you will find the following documents:

My POPLA Appeal:
The PPC's Evidence Pack (which includes the original notice from PPC and my original unsuccessful appeal)
2 additional documents they submitted

Thanks immensely for reading.

Quentin

www.*********


Link edited see #5 below

The_Deep

I could not read the attachments, but they seem to be relying heavily on Beavis v Parking Eye.

IMO it is very unlikely that Beavis is apposite, this was a free car park with a teo hour limit, and no facility to purcase extra time. PE were leasing it from the landowner for £1000 a week, and the signs were thought to be clear and legible.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

NiJella

Thank you The Deep. I will review your advice in more detail tomorrow. In the meantime, please could you let me know why you were not able to read the attachments? This might be something I need to rectify...

Cheers

Quentin

@OP


You need to either remove the link to your docs or go through them more thoroughly with your black pen


You have left unique info on view that will allow the PPC to identify you


The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you in court

Coupon-mad

Comments:

1. CEL refer to me as both female (#12) & male (#15) and wrongly say that I 'admitted to driving'. This is untrue, and is just cut & pasted from another case.

2. CEL failed to rebut the fact that this is 'not relevant land'. Byelaws land is de facto NOT 'relevant land' whatever POPLA's 'sector expert' says. It's irrelevant that the PCN isn't a 'penalty charge' and even if it tries to hold a keeper liable, on THIS land, CEL has no such legal right as POFA does NOT APPLY.

3. The signs are at car wheel height, on low railings, with other brighter advertising signs in larger font. Among this series of adverts there is no clear & obvious 'contract'. CEL's sign is overpowered even if the car park was empty, which is unlikely on a Saturday afternoon in the week schools broke up for Easter.

4. As soon as cars are parked in those bays, the signs disappear from view. This is a busy tourist area & visitors choose to park at the front by the railings, filling up those spaces first for the harbour view, so it is very likely the low signs were completely obscured by parked cars.

5. The t&cs including '£100/£56' are in tiny print compared to the size of the 'tariffs' font. CEL has had to circle it for POPLA! These so-called t&cs are around ankle height on the railings, failing Lord Denning's red hand rule.

6. The 'authority' is electronic with no job title of the facsimile signatory, no definitions, tariffs, nor end date of the contract, supposedly signed in 2017. There's nothing to say when it starts & ends, or that it continues into 2019.

7. CEL have shown a list of payments up until 18.52pm. Odd, given that the signs (if you can read them) say that retrospective payment could have been made by phone until midnight. To discount this possibility, CEL had to show POPLA all payments made up to midnight. They have failed to show that the driver didn't pay.

The PCN was not properly given, nor is any contravention evidenced.

The_Deep

I was unable to make them large enough, I am not all that good with these tech thingies.

NiJella

Quentin wrote: »

@OP


You need to either remove the link to your docs or go through them more thoroughly with your black pen


You have left unique info on view that will allow the PPC to identify you

The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you in court

Quentin, thank you very much for your help, advice acted upon, I did not realise.

You're a diamond. :beer:

NiJella

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Comments:

1. CEL refer to me as both female (#12) & male (#15) and wrongly say that I 'admitted to driving'. This is untrue, and is just cut & pasted from another case.

2. CEL failed to rebut the fact that this is 'not relevant land'. Byelaws land is de facto NOT 'relevant land' whatever POPLA's 'sector expert' says. It's irrelevant that the PCN isn't a 'penalty charge' and even if it tries to hold a keeper liable, on THIS land, CEL has no such legal right as POFA does NOT APPLY.

3. The signs are at car wheel height, on low railings, with other brighter advertising signs in larger font. Among this series of adverts there is no clear & obvious 'contract'. CEL's sign is overpowered even if the car park was empty, which is unlikely on a Saturday afternoon in the week schools broke up for Easter.

4. As soon as cars are parked in those bays, the signs disappear from view. This is a busy tourist area & visitors choose to park at the front by the railings, filling up those spaces first for the harbour view, so it is very likely the low signs were completely obscured by parked cars.

5. The t&cs including '£100/£56' are in tiny print compared to the size of the 'tariffs' font. CEL has had to circle it for POPLA! These so-called t&cs are around ankle height on the railings, failing Lord Denning's red hand rule.

6. The 'authority' is electronic with no job title of the facsimile signatory, no definitions, tariffs, nor end date of the contract, supposedly signed in 2017. There's nothing to say when it starts & ends, or that it continues into 2019.

7. CEL have shown a list of payments up until 18.52pm. Odd, given that the signs (if you can read them) say that retrospective payment could have been made by phone until midnight. To discount this possibility, CEL had to show POPLA all payments made up to midnight. They have failed to show that the driver didn't pay.

The PCN was not properly given, nor is any contravention evidenced.

Coupon Mad, what an absolute hero!! This is so very helpful! I cannot thank you enough. I am incredibly lucky that you read my post and then took the time to write such a brill and comprehensive response! Thank you, you legend! I will of course update with the outcome. Immensely grateful! :A

NiJella

The_Deep wrote: »

I was unable to make them large enough, I am not all that good with these tech thingies.

The Deep - I see, thank you again.

NiJella

We WON:

POPLA Decision:

"In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. The signage at the site states “PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE…PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON DAY OF PARKING…If you do not obtain a valid permit ……If you breach these terms and conditions you will be charged £100”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for one hour 19 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on the signage. The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site and mentioned the Beavis case. The appellant explains the land is subject to bye-laws and not relevant land as defined within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal. As there is a reasonable suspicion that byelaws apply to the land, I would expect the operator to do one of two things, demonstrate the keeper is the driver or demonstrate the land they manage is not subject to byelaws. As the operator has done neither, this appeal is allowed."

Absolutely over the moon. THANK YOU again for all the help and advice. High five!!