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

fatboy34

thanks - i had misread as 2000 words. second attempt:

Pack from CEL does not address initial key point of my appeal. Contains a lot of template language, mostly irrelevant to my appeal, to disguise a lack of substance.
- CEL’s response makes no reference to key point of appeal - no keeper liability. Valid Notice to Keeper was not sent.
o “Response to Representation” sent 29th August. Deemed receipt 2 working days later, 2nd September = 15 days after 18th August. So longer than 14 day period allowed in Paragraph 9(5) of POFA.
o “Parking Charge Notice” dated 22nd August does not meet requirements of POFA Paragraph 9 e.g. 9(2)(e).

- CEL pack contains template language not relevant to my appeal. E.g. point 24 re. mitigating circumstances.

- Parking Eye vs Beavis: not relevant. In Beavis case, specific driver identified and overstayed by “almost an hour”. In this case, no driver identified.

- Photos of signs in CEL pack actually demonstrate inadequate signage. BPA’s guidance states “Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision.” Key text is small and faint–could not be read from vehicle.

- Confirmation of Authority document not consistent with car park signs. (10 minutes vs 15 mins grace).

- Confirmation of Authority signed by Land Controller but not landowner. Not valid.

- Lack of attention to detail evident throughout. E.g. uses the terms Driver and Appellant interchangeably. But in point 13 of the pack, CEL acknowledges that keeper declined to provide driver details – as is my legal right. Pack makes references to driver being female e.g. Point 12 and 18. How is this known?
The pack from CEL has been hastily put together using a previous template. Does not address key point of no keeper liability. I politely request that you uphold my appeal.

Fruitcake

fatboy34 wrote: »

thanks - i had misread as 2000 words. second attempt:

Pack from CEL does not address initial key point of my appeal. Contains a lot of template language, mostly irrelevant to my appeal, to disguise a lack of substance.
- CEL’s response makes no reference to key point of appeal - no keeper liability. Valid Notice to Keeper was not sent.
o “Response to Representation” sent 29th August. Deemed receipt 2 working days later, 2nd September = 15 days after 18th August. So longer than 14 day period allowed in Paragraph 9(5) of POFA.
o “Parking Charge Notice” dated 22nd August does not meet requirements of POFA Paragraph 9 e.g. 9(2)(e).

- CEL pack contains template language not relevant to my appeal. E.g. point 24 re. mitigating circumstances.

- Parking Eye vs Beavis: not relevant. In Beavis case, specific driver identified and overstayed by “almost an hour”. In this case, no driver identified.

- Photos of signs in CEL pack actually demonstrate inadequate signage. BPA’s guidance states “Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision.” Key text is small and faint–could not be read from vehicle.

- Confirmation of Authority document not consistent with car park signs. (10 minutes vs 15 mins grace).

- Confirmation of Authority signed by Land Controller but not landowner. Not valid.

- Lack of attention to detail evident throughout. E.g. uses the terms Driver and Appellant interchangeably. But in point 13 of the pack, CEL acknowledges that keeper declined to provide driver details – as is my legal right. Pack makes references to driver being female e.g. Point 12 and 18. How is this known?
The pack from CEL has been hastily put together using a previous template. Does not address key point of no keeper liability. I politely request that you uphold my appeal.

Please see my previous matter. You seem to have mixed up the NTK with the Response to Representation.

fatboy34

thanks. think we crossed messages.
what i meant was i had received two letters from CEL.
- one was entitled PCN and I argued in my appeal was invalid because it didn't contain the POFA compliant language (but did come within 14 days)
- the other "Response to representation" did contain compliant language but did not come within 14 days.

so i was arguing that neither one could be construed as a valid NTK.

To be clear, i did argue at length in my initial appeal that the initial "PCN" was not a valid NTK because of lack of POFA-compliant language, so i can continue to go down that route?

fatboy34

Dear all,
just a note to say my POPLA appeal was successful. Many thanks and congratulations on this great resource! If it is helpful for future users, i appealed on several bases and my appeal was actually upheld on the basis of inadequate signage. full POPLA text below:


Assessor supporting rational for decision
As I am unable to determine who the driver of the vehicle was on the date in question, I must ensure Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been complied with. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is used to transfer liability for the Parking Charge Notice from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, liability for the Parking Charge Notice has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that there is inadequate signage, and there is insufficient notice of the parking sum itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to inform motorists of the charge associated with not complying with the terms and conditions of the site. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, based on the evidence of the signage provided to me, I do not consider that this PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal I have not consider them.

Coupon-mad

Nice one!

Could you repeat that in POPLA Decisions but adding half a dozen paragraph breaks please so it is more readable?

By putting it in POPLA decisions up the top of the forum, it is more easily searchable and more people will see it. Add a link to this thread, and state which parking firm you beat, please, in the sticky thread.

:T