Help please! PCN from CEL, Port of Wells, Norfolk

fatboy34

Dear all, could i ask your advice about a POPLA appeal? So far I have read the Newbie FAQs and a lot of other posts on here, have done an initial appeal, and received a POPLA code.

The situation is as follows:
- 18th August: Car was parked at Port of Wells Car Park in Norfolk (which i have seen on other threads here - seems it may be covered by byelaws, but they argue not)
- Full amount of £4.50 for a day ticket was paid, but 30 mins after entering car park (due to mitigating circumstances - but it seems pointless citing these with POPLA)
- I received in the post a Parking Charge Notice as the Registered Keeper for £100, because the grace period is only 15 mins. (The "PCN" does NOT use the POFA-complaint language).
- I sent an initial appeal to CEL using the template from the Newbie FAQ. I did NOT name a driver.
- Received a "Response to Representation" from CEL saying, as expected, my appeal was unsuccessful and giving a POPLA verfication code. This letter does seem to use POFA-compliant language. The date on this letter (29th Aug), plus 2 working days for deemed receipt, is exactly 14 days from the day after the alleged parking incident, which i believe (annoyingly) means that it is likely to meet the criteria for a notice to keeper? (the letter was actually received on the 4th Sep which is outside the 14 day period, but i can't prove this).

=> Based on the above, i'd be really keen for advice about the basis on which I should appeal to POPLA.

thanks in advance for your help!

KeithP

A letter is deemed delivered two working days after posting.

POFA says that a Notice to Keeper must be 'given', i.e. delivered, within 14 days of the incident - where the date of the incident is day zero.

So, as the incident was on 18th August, then the NtK must be received by the keeper on or before Sunday 1st September.

As the NtK is dated 29th August, which is a Thursday, it could not have been deemed delivered before the next Monday - two working days later.

That Monday's date is 2nd September.

Thus the NtK arrived too late to allow the PPC to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

You should appeal to PoPLA on the basis that the keeper is not liable and they have not identified the driver - together with all the other applicable points that you will find in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

The_Deep

seems it may be covered by byelaws, but they argue not)

I may be wrong but ISTR a recent thread where the harbourmaster confirmed that byelaws apply. Why not write to him asking for a copy.

fatboy34

thanks both. Writing my appeal now and have just submitted the following to the Harbourmaster at Wells via their website enquiries form:


FAO: Robert Smith. Request for information.

Dear Mr Smith,

I am writing with regard to a letter recently received from Civil Enforcement Ltd relating to a vehicle of which I am the registered keeper.

With respect to the The Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994, would you please confirm whether the quay car park is covered by the byelaws within this Order.

With kindest regards,

fatboy34

Quick update and final question:

I received an email from Wells Harbour saying "we can confirm that there are no bye laws". Interesting as this contradicts what others on this site have said. I have included in may appeal a paragraph to the effect that "if byelaws are in place, the following applies..." but does not claim their existence.

Final question, on the POPLA website when i am appealing on the basis of no keeper liability, which of the initial options should i choose? presumably "I was not improperly parked"?

many thanks again - such a great resource

KeithP

fatboy34 wrote: »

Final question, on the POPLA website when i am appealing on the basis of no keeper liability, which of the initial options should i choose? presumably "I was not improperly parked"?

No, definitely not that choice.
Can you not see that that tells PoPLA who the driver was?

How to file a PoPLA appeal is clearly explained in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread where you will find:

These then get saved as PDFs and uploaded to POPLA under OTHER (ONLY) - do not think you only have 2000 characters in some box on the POPLA wepage!

The_Deep

I am certain that a previous poster told us that the Harbour Master had confirmed that bye laws existed.

Some reading

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=XOSEXaSgH4qYlwSU56T4BQ&q=port+of+wells+byelaws&oq=port+of+wells+byelaws&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1938.12415..14605...0.0..1.228.2130.14j6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i22i30j33i160.qsMSXAZsKhk&ved=0ahUKEwikvpKs0N_kAhUKzIUKHZQzCV8Q4dUDCAs

Guys_Dad

No, No, No.!!!!

You have been given your single appeal point by KeithP who has clearly laid out your winner. The NTK is OUT OF TIME..

That's all you need as long as you appeal as keeper and do not admit who was driving.

Come back and tell us when you win.

fatboy34

Dear all, i've just had an email from POPLA containing an evidence pack from CEL. they have ignored the key point of my appeal about keeper liability. i have written the below response and just wondered if you'd be so kind as to take a quick look before i submit it. many thanks!

Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to the pack submitted by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL), I would like to make a number of points. The pack appears to contain a lot of template language, some of which is completely irrelevant to my appeal, a number of inconsistencies, and most importantly does not address the initial and key point of my appeal.
- Most importantly, and as noted above, CEL’s response makes absolutely no reference to the first and key point of my POPLA appeal, namely that there is no keeper liability. To repeat this point, a valid Notice to Keeper was not sent.
o The letter entitled “Response to Representation” was sent on 29th August, and therefore deemed receipt is two working days later, on 2nd September. This is 15 days after the alleged parking incident on 18th August. Paragraph 9(5) of POFA specifies a 14 day period. This is not a guideline, it is a written law. The letter was therefore sent later than is required by law.
o The “Parking Charge Notice” dated 22nd August does not meet the requirements of Paragraph 9 of POFA, for example, Paragraph 9(2)(e) under which a valid Notice to Keeper must “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver”

- As stated earlier, much of the pack from CEL represents template language which is not relevant to my appeal. For example, point 24 refers to mitigating circumstances, but at no point during the appeal process have I made reference to any mitigating circumstances.

- The pack makes reference to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case. Whilst this represents an example of the Supreme Court making a judgement in favour of a parking operator, the details of the case are very different to the allegations which CEL are making in my case. In the Beavis case, a specific driver had been identified and had overstayed by “almost an hour”. In my case, no driver has been identified, and as stated above, there can be no legal claim of keeper liability. Furthermore, CEL include evidence in their pack that the maximum tariff of £4.50 for a full day’s parking was paid in respect of the vehicle of which I am registered keeper, and therefore the only conceivable issue is one relating to the grace period – the length of which, as i demonstrate in my following point, is stated inconsistently in the evidence provided by CEL.

- The photographs of the signage included in the CEL pack, far from demonstrating that the signs are adequate, actually demonstrate that they are inadequate. The BPA’s own guidance states that Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision.” Furthermore, even at the close range at which these photographs were taken, the text referring to the key terms is very small and in very faint text, and could not reasonably be read from a vehicle entering the car park.

- The “Confirmation of Authority” document is not consistent with photographs in the CEL letter showing the signage at the car park. The Confirmation of Authority references a 10 minute grace period, whereas the signs in the photographs refer to a 15 minute period.

- Furthermore, the “Confirmation of Authority” is signed on behalf of the Land Controller but not the landowner, and therefore does not, in and of itself, demonstrate the authority of the landowner as required by law.

- This lack of attention to detail is evident throughout the CEL pack. For example, it uses the terms Driver and Appellant interchangeably. However, in point 13 of the pack, CEL acknowledges that I (as registered keeper) have declined to provide driver details – as is my legal right. The pack makes several references to the driver being female (for example Point 12 (“her vehicle”) and Point 18 (“she could have used an alternative payment method”). For reference I, the registered keeper, am male.
In summary, I suggest that the pack from CEL has been hastily put together using a previous template and does not address my key point that there is no keeper liability. It cites case law which is not relevant in this instance, as well as a large amount of other irrelevant template language, which I assume is intended to distract the reader from the fact that it does not address the key points of my appeal. I therefore politely request that you uphold my appeal.
With best regards,

KeithP

Your response to PoPLA needs to be 2000 characters or less.

I make that over 4600 characters long.

Fruitcake

When did the keeper receive the NTK? In your opening post you say: -

- 18th August: Car was parked at Port of Wells Car Park in Norfolk (which i have seen on other threads here - seems it may be covered by byelaws, but they argue not)
- Full amount of £4.50 for a day ticket was paid, but 30 mins after entering car park (due to mitigating circumstances - but it seems pointless citing these with POPLA)
I received in the post a Parking Charge Notice as the Registered Keeper for £100, because the grace period is only 15 mins. (The "PCN" does NOT use the POFA-complaint language).

You then go on to say: -

- I sent an initial appeal to CEL using the template from the Newbie FAQ. I did NOT name a driver.
- Received a "Response to Representation" from CEL saying, as expected, my appeal was unsuccessful and giving a POPLA verfication code. This letter does seem to use POFA-compliant language. The date on this letter (29th Aug),

The response to representation is irrelevant as it arrived after the NTK was received and after the initial appeal was made. It would appear from that that the NTK was received within the PoFA timescales. If that is the case then you should not have used it in your PoPLA appeal.

You should however have mentioned the on-PoFA complaint wording on the NTK and should now be concentrating non rebutting the scammers comments about that.

In your most recent post you say: -

- Furthermore, the “Confirmation of Authority” is signed on behalf of the Land Controller but not the landowner, and therefore does not, in and of itself, demonstrate the authority of the landowner as required by law.

This fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 where two signatories or a director and a witness from both parties are needed for the contract to be valid.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44