UPDATE: CEL POPLA Response with alleged Proof of Land Authority

aloziem

Hi everyone,

I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Limited 2nd September from incident on Bank Holiday weekend. I parked in a car park that as long as I'd known was always free. Apparently no more. I didn't see (or notice) anywhere to pay. The car was there 23mins. I read a lot on here and MSE forum and followed the recommended letter of appeal etc. It was rejected and I appealed on POPLA on the following grounds:

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself (using Beavis vs Parking Eye case)
3) No Vehicle Images on the PCN and therefore no compliance with BPA’s Code of Practice (within 21 days of original charge)
4) No Evidence to show full period of parking
5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

CEL came back last week with pictures of the vehicle (but this is well after 21 days. Incident was end of August), a 2 page press summary on Beavis vs Parking Eye (not sure what this means), images of the car park with parking signs seemingly everywhere but I know for a fact they are old pics as I went there last week and submitted the latest pics with my appeal there are railings now with less signage, confirmation of authority 1 pager from land controller 'signed' in February. (attached)

They maintain that there is no record of me paying and so the charge can be upheld (now £100).

I don't have long to make comments. Is there any way out of this?

Thanks to anyone who can offer advice

CEL documents:
ibb.co/mJBgQMh
ibb.co/GRMBP87
ibb.co/CH1W3hh
ibb.co/R4bvYcH

My evidence submitted to POPLA
i.postimg.cc/68WwbzdG/20190920-144748-resized-1.jpg
i.postimg.cc/sB1zsXHj/20190920-144807-resized-1.jpg
i.postimg.cc/rdbkmk7S/20190920-150950-resized-1.jpg
i.postimg.cc/gxgpCRDt/20190920-151038-resized-1.jpg
i.postimg.cc/q7FCYZbT/Screenshot-20190921-104922-Gallery.jpg

The_Deep

Tempted to pay the £60

If you do you may well be funding organised crime, better to fight imo as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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

The_Deep

I am glad you are going to fight it. Sorry, I do not usually read defences and WSS unless they are very short.i

The_Deep

If they have no photographic evidence, as you state, how can they share it with you?

aloziem

Fruitcake wrote: »

Utter carp.

The contract does not have two signatories from each company. There is no named person or signature from CEL at all.
There is no mention of the landowner having a contract with the landholder, therefore there is no authority flowing from the landowner to the scammers. A quick grab for about £3 will get you the landowner details from the Land Registry to support your case.

The alleged contract does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. Have a look at post 48 of this thread for a better explanations.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6027099&page=3

Pick apart their signage bumf that does not address your assertions that they are inadequate. Use your own pics and theirs against them, and compare them with the unusually clear signs from Beavis case.

Show us your pics of the signs if you can.

The Beavis case was an overstay in a free car park and there can be distinguished from a P & D car park.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Thanks so much for your input! I did think that one page document looked dodgy. How can that be proof of authority?!

The pics of the signs I took last week are in the links posted in my thread here (at the end of the first post): forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6050449
I will raise that they are very different to the pics they sent.

I'll read the thread you posted and check land registry

aloziem

Fruitcake wrote: »

Utter carp.

The contract does not have two signatories from each company. There is no named person or signature from CEL at all.
There is no mention of the landowner having a contract with the landholder, therefore there is no authority flowing from the landowner to the scammers. A quick grab for about £3 will get you the landowner details from the Land Registry to support your case.

The alleged contract does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. Have a look at post 48 of this thread for a better explanations.



Pick apart their signage bumf that does not address your assertions that they are inadequate. Use your own pics and theirs against them, and compare them with the unusually clear signs from Beavis case.

Show us your pics of the signs if you can.

The Beavis case was an overstay in a free car park and there can be distinguished from a P & D car park.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

I'm going to challenge that the document they provided is not valid. With regards to your post 48 in the other thread, do I include the link to the imgur upload of Initial Parking contract to say that that is an example of a valid contract for landowner authority?

This is my draft. Still editing as word count won't fit points 3 and 4 yet

1. Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) has not provided a valid landowner contract. The document submitted by CEL is not proof of authority of that land. Please see requirements here: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44
The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures are illegible and digitally typed (not by hand). CEL has not proven they are authorised by Mark Vallis and there is no named person or signature from CEL at all. It does not match the handwritten signature of Mark Vallis as listed on companies house

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid. This contract failure is a British Parking Association code of practice failure concerning a private company’s permission to operate

I have complained to BPA and DVLA that CEL is operating a for profit business on land where they are not validated by contract to do so
There is no mention of the landowner having a contract with the landholder, therefore there is no authority flowing from the landowner to CEL. I require a full unredacted copy of the original contract

2. The pictures provided by CEL are not an accurate representation of signage as current at the site in question. The pictures provided in my original appeal were taken in September 2019 as evidenced by the railings between the paved high street for pedestrians and the car park. With these added railings, signage has been moved as evidenced by the placement from my pictures which are not easily viewable by any drivers

3. The Summary document provided by CEL is from a Beavis case related to an overstay in a free car park and this can be distinguished from a Pay and Display Car Park like CEL, the two are not comparable

4. The signage pictures provided by CEL does not address my assertions that they are inadequate. Again please refer to pictures I provided and my original grounds for appeal in relation to signage. Compare these to the unusually clear signs from the Beavis case as included in my original grounds for appeal

waamo

If this is the rebuttal stage at POPLA then you can't submit that. You are limited to 2000 characters. Yes characters not words. That means no inserting examples of what it should look like or other lengthy evidence.

Keep it snappy bullet points otherwise you run out of characters

Fruitcake

aloziem wrote: »

I'm going to challenge that the document they provided is not valid. With regards to your post 48 in the other thread, do I include the link to the imgur upload of Initial Parking contract to say that that is an example of a valid contract for landowner authority?

This is my draft. Still editing as word count won't fit points 3 and 4 yet

1. Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) has not provided a valid landowner contract. The document submitted by CEL is not proof of authority of that land. This is an alleged valid contract imgur.com/a/c5XMstZ What CEL provided fails to meet requirements of Companies Act 2006, and thus is invalid. Please see requirements here: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44
The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures are illegible and digitally typed (not by hand). CEL has not proven they are authorised by Mark Vallis and there is no named person or signature from CEL at all. It does not match the handwritten signature of Mark Vallis as listed on companies house

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid. This contract failure is a British Parking Association code of practice failure concerning a private company’s permission to operate

I have complained to BPA and DVLA that CEL is operating a for profit business on land where they are not validated by contract to do so
There is no mention of the landowner having a contract with the landholder, therefore there is no authority flowing from the landowner to CEL. I require a full unredacted copy of the original contract

2. The pictures provided by CEL are not an accurate representation of signage as current at the site in question. The pictures provided in my original appeal were taken in September 2019 as evidenced by the railings between the paved high street for pedestrians and the car park. With these added railings, signage has been moved as evidenced by the placement from my pictures which are not easily viewable by any drivers

3. The Summary document provided by CEL is from a Beavis case related to an overstay in a free car park and this can be distinguished from a Pay and Display Car Park like CEL, the two are not comparable

4. The signage pictures provided by CEL does not address my assertions that they are inadequate. Again please refer to pictures I provided and my original grounds for appeal in relation to signage. Compare these to the unusually clear signs from the Beavis case as included in my original grounds for appeal

You obviously haven't properly read post 48 of the thread I pointed you to as it has another example of a dodgy contract, not a valid one.

Please also delete and amend your other thread as requested because it is causing confusion by having two threads for the same subject.

Just a reminder in case you haven't spotted it already, PoPLA rebutals are 2000 characters by the way, not 2000 words.

aloziem

waamo wrote: »

If this is the rebuttal stage at POPLA then you can't submit that. You are limited to 2000 characters. Yes characters not words. That means no inserting examples of what it should look like or other lengthy evidence.

Keep it snappy bullet points otherwise you run out of characters

Yes I'm aware it's 2000 characters. I've got half of point 3 in now and need to find room for point 4. So will keep trimming and make it more snappy.

aloziem

Fruitcake wrote: »

You obviously haven't properly read post 48 of the thread I pointed you to as it has another example of a dodgy contract, not a valid one.

Please also delete and amend your other thread as requested because it is causing confusion by having two threads for the same subject.

Just a reminder in case you haven't spotted it already, PoPLA rebutals are 2000 characters by the way, not 2000 words.

I did read post 48. I was slightly confused. I asked if I misunderstood in my post above to you. I included it in my draft in case I hadn't misunderstood, but will delete as it's also a dodgy contract.

I'm at work in meetings so I've been deleting while trying to pretend to be engaged in discussion everything should be deleted now.

Yes I'm aware it's 2000 characters, I'm deleting bits to get it down. Just have to fit in point 4. My question was more around the content. Does it look ok to you? I've amended point 1 to remove reference to the other contract. Thanks