They had a contract demonstrating landowner authority - now what?

Umkomaas

Should I spend some of my precious 2000 characters in raising this point to POPLA? I'm not sure if it is relevant, since they clearly include ANPR images showing the vehicle leaving at 03:35 and not 03:45.
wasdwasd1 is online now

I haven't checked back, but if it wasn't aired in your original POPLA appeal, you are not allowed to raise new issues.

Fruitcake

If you raised, no contract/no authority in your initial PoPLA appeal, then go with the comments I made about the Companies Act.

If you can't cover all the points in 2k characters (which includes spaces) then just state the most important parts. If you have time, show us your rebuttal before submitting it, but do not miss the 6 day deadline (You lose the first day because the clock starts the day they send the rebuttal.)

The alleged contract is invalid as it fails to meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, section 44.
There is only one signature but para 2 of the Act requires two from each company.
The single signatory is not authorised in accordance with para 3 of the Act. Their position within the company has not been given. CEL have provided no proof they are a company director as required by the Act.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided at all, therefore there is no proof that a contract actually exists between the two parties.

Again, if you have the space, point out that their rebuttal says 03.45 but the ANPR time shows 03.35. This shows they have not checked their own data properly and thus the whole process is flawed.
This really only needs a one liner to point out the discrepancy.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas wrote: »

I haven't checked back, but if it wasn't aired in your original POPLA appeal, you are not allowed to raise new issues.

... but I believe this can be used if the scammers have mentioned it in their comments to the appeal.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake wrote: »

... but I believe this can be used if the scammers have mentioned it in their comments to the appeal.

Genuinely not sure. If you have some 'spare' characters @OP, try it, you're not 'penalised' for adding it in.

Castle

wasdwasd1 wrote: »

T
Yes. However, I am not sure how relevant this is to the appeal, given that the signage indicates a 90 min maximum STAY.

But the confirmation of authority refers to 1.5 hours parking.

wasdwasd1

but do not miss the 6 day deadline (You lose the first day because the clock starts the day they send the rebuttal.)

The evidence was uploaded on 22/08 - this means I have until the end of tomorrow to make my comments, correct?

But the confirmation of authority refers to 1.5 hours parking.

This is true, but it also refers to authority to issue PCN's for 'breach of any of the terms displayed on the signage', so I'm not entirely sure that POPLA will find this to be a convincing argument.

wasdwasd1

Here is my draft - 1999 characters:


"I contend that CEL have failed in their burden of proof to demonstrate any lawful authority.
The ‘contract’ provided does not comply with BPACoP 7.3 a-e. Neither does it comply with S44 of the Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44), which requires 2 signatories from each company to sign a contract. Here there is only 1 signature from 1 company. The single signatory is not authorised as defined by p3 of the Act - their position within the company has not been given. No proof is shown that they are company director as required by the Act.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided at all.
While 2 registered companies exist in the UK by the name given in this contract, no identifier has been given as to which is relevant.
No proof has been given that any company mentioned has landowner rights at this location; that any contract exists between the landowner & CEL; or that any such contract has been executed in compliance with the Companies Act.
No evidence was given that the unlit entrance sign is visible/legible in low-light conditions - because it is not. A reasonably attentive driver, having missed this sign, could very easily drive onto the site, park in the highlighted bays, & enter the cafe, without ever being presented a visible /legible sign indicating any parking limitations.
CEL’s site plan shows that the ANPR system incorporates the drivethru; this is not made clear by any signage, the positioning and wording of which imply that restrictions apply ONLY to the car park. The driver used the drivethru on the night in question.
CEL acknowledge the minimum 10m grace period to allow a driver to decide whether to enter the contract. BPACoP 30.2 also states that another grace period of minimum 10m 'TO LEAVE AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS ENDED' is owed. CEL have ignored this requirement.
CEL insist that my vehicle exited at 03:45 but the ANPR time shows 03:35. They have not checked their own data properly and their entire process is flawed."

Tips/ feedback would be gratefully received.
Currently, I am debating whether to swap out my '2 companies exist by this name' statement and go instead with 'the contract was signed in Dec 2018 and has not been shown to be valid for May 2019', which I think might be a stronger point to make. Thoughts?

Fruitcake

A few suggestions.

wasdwasd1 wrote: »

Here is my draft - 1999 characters:


"[STRIKE]I contend that[/STRIKE] CEL have failed [STRIKE]in their burden of proof [/STRIKE]to demonstrate any lawful authority.
The ‘contract’ provided by CEL does not comply with BPACoP 7.3 a-e. [STRIKE]Neither does it comply [/STRIKE] nor with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44), which requires 2 signatories from each company [STRIKE]to sign[/STRIKE] for a contract to be valid. [STRIKE]Here t[/STRIKE]There is only 1 signature from 1 company. The single signatory is not authorised as defined by para 3 of the Act and their position within the company has not been given. No proof is shown that they are a company director as required by the Act.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided at all.
While 2 registered companies exist in the UK by the name given in this contract, no identifier has been given as to which is relevant.
No proof has been given that any company mentioned has landowner rights at this location; that any contract exists between the landowner & CEL; or that any such contract has been executed in compliance with the Companies Act.
No evidence was given that the unlit entrance sign is visible/legible in low-light conditions - because it is not. A reasonably attentive driver, having missed this sign, could very easily drive onto the site, park in the highlighted bays, & enter the cafe, without ever being presented a visible /legible sign indicating any parking limitations.
CEL’s site plan shows that the ANPR system incorporates the drivethru; this is not made clear by any signage, the positioning and wording of which imply that restrictions apply ONLY to the car park. The driver used the drivethru on the night in question.
CEL acknowledge the minimum 10m grace period to allow a driver to decide whether to enter the contract. BPACoP 30.2 also states that another grace period of minimum 10m 'TO LEAVE AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS ENDED' is owed. CEL have ignored this requirement.
CEL insist that my vehicle exited at 03:45 but the ANPR time shows 03:35. They have not checked their own data properly and their entire process is flawed."

Tips/ feedback would be gratefully received.
Currently, I am debating whether to swap out my '2 companies exist by this name' statement and go instead with 'the contract was signed in Dec 2018 and has not been shown to be valid for May 2019', which I think might be a stronger point to make. Thoughts?

You may be able to prune enough characters to allow enough space for your contract point, but you need to explain it a bit better.

wasdwasd1

A few suggestions.

Thank you so much!



I have updated the statement to this (2000 on the dot):
" [FONT=&quot]CEL have failed to demonstrate any lawful authority.
The ‘contract’ provided does not comply with BPACoP 7.3 (any of a-e), nor with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44), which requires 2 signatories from each company for a contract to be valid. There is only 1 signatory from 1 company, who is not authorised as defined by para 3 of the Act and whose position within the company is not given. No proof is shown that they are a company director as required by the Act.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided whatsoever.
The contract is dated 7/12/18 and is not shown to be relevant to the date of the incident.
While 2 registered companies exist in the UK by the name given in this contract, no identifier is given as to which is relevant.
No proof is given that any company mentioned has landowner rights at this location; that any contract exists between the landowner & CEL; or that any such contract has been executed in compliance with the Companies Act.
No evidence is given that the unlit entrance sign is visible/legible in low-light conditions - because it is not. A reasonably attentive driver, having missed this sign, could then drive onto the site, park in the highlighted bays, & enter the cafe without ever being presented with a visible/legible sign indicating any parking limitations.
CEL’s site plan shows their ANPR system to incorporate the Drivethru, while the positioning and wording of their signage clearly imply the restrictions to apply ONLY to the car park. The driver spent many minutes at this Drivethru on the night in question.
CEL acknowledge the minimum 10m grace period to allow a driver to decide whether to enter their contract, but fail to allow a further 10m "TO LEAVE AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS ENDED" (this is separate as per BPACoP 30.2).
CEL insist that my vehicle exited at 03:45 but the ANPR time shows 03:35, proving CEL to not check their own data properly and their processes to be faulty.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am not sure where pruning the 'grace period' bit was a good idea, but I needed the characters. I think I still get the point across, but maybe not enough.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am going to submit this comment before midnight as I have been spooked by the previous comment re 7 days actually equals 6 days. The operator evidence was added on 22/08 and I don't want to miss the deadline.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Any last minute adjustments would be warmly welcomed
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

wasdwasd1 wrote: »

The evidence was uploaded on 22/08 - this means I have until the end of tomorrow to make my comments, correct?

No, you had till yesterday and I am surprised if the comments portal is still open to you. The first day was 22nd. You don't add seven days ON. You add six!

They had a contract demonstrating landowner authority

Of course they did. They have to, and most PPCs do upload them for POPLA appeals, perfectly normal.

I would not waste comments on 'compliance with the Companies Act' as this is OUTSIDE the POPLA remit.

Go for grace periods first, and instead of all that waffle just say that it took 6 minutes to find a space and 9 minutes to leave, and EXPLAIN WHY (it was busy, it was a Saturday in a holiday resort/busy city in Summer, and this is why the car had to queue...etc.).

That is what could win it.

I hope the portal is open for you but it won't be in the morning.