PCN Wells Next the sea the Quay car park- Civil Enforcement ltd

KeithP

Finchman, if you would like help with your issue please start a new thread.

Trying to deal with two people's issues in a single thread can only lead to confusion - as can be seen by Fruitcake's reply, where he thought your post was by the Original Poster.

Fruitcake

KeithP wrote: »

Finchman, if you would like help with your issue please start a new thread.

Trying to deal with two people's issues in a single thread can only lead to confusion - as can be seen by Fruitcake's reply, where he thought your post was by the Original Poster.

My post was aimed firmly at the OP who still has information in their first post that identifies the driver to the PPC.

FrankCannon

OP, please look at post #16, where you identify yourself by name.

The_Deep

If you live locally, why not march into the Harbourmaster's office and give him a good rollicking.

kjs_1991

Ok I need some advise on what to do next. Here is an update in my current battle.
I sent my SAR and wrote to CEL. They responded telling me that all relevant documents would be sent to me which they now have been. However for some of the points I made when writing to them they would not send me the information relating to that. Some of the information includes:
"2. Contract
As you have not provided a substantive response as to why you dispute the PCN, this is not relevant document."
"As previously stated. there are no byelaws currently in place. Therefore, the land is not under statutory control and is relevant land which can be managed under POFA"
"Images of signs and their locations and  Improvements to signs and lighting- again have not been provided due to not providing a substantive response as to why you dispute the PCN, and therefore is not a relevant document"

They said they would reduce the fine to £100 from £182 because I had not received all the previous information however this had to be paid before I received all of the documents from the SAR. 
The documents include images of my car reg but not me and I was in the carpark for 13 mins in total. 

What response should I now send which will ensure this fine is now dropped? 

Kind regards

nosferatu1001

2) Well your personal data is not part of the contract with the landholder, so they did not have to provide it. 

- byelaws - well are there? Prove it if so. 
- signs - state the signs were clearly not visible. Boom theres the reason

There is nothing you can do, other than pay that will cause them to drop this INVOICE. Nothing. 

FrankCannon

The harbour is subject to several specific pieces of legislation, last last of which is the The Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994, which I've attached below.

The car park is mentioned on page 4, which says ;

General byelaws

9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order the Commissioners may make byelaws for all or any of the following purposes

       (k) for regulating the movement, speed and parking of vehicles within the harbour estate

   
Note that is says that the Commissioner MAY make byelaws. In the minutes of the annual public harbour users meeting dated 14th May 2019 ( attached below ), the harbourmaster, Robert Smith, responded to questions about the change in car park regime ;

RS stated that the port does not have bye-laws but this was a legal argument that required legal advice. The port operates under its Revision Order and Harbour Master directions.

Regarding the contract with Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL), other companies were considered.

The move to a camera enforcement system was taken as too many users were not paying the fee to park, many of which were using it while they visited local food outlets. Harbour staff tried to encourage users to pay but were receiving threats of violence and verbal abuse. It was decided to move the management of the car park to an external company. CEL initially wanted a 5 year contract but WHC negotiated this to 3 years so as not to tie the port into a lengthy contract. Anyone unhappy with receiving a PCN should follow the correct appeals procedure.

WHC does not receive income from the fines, all that is expected is that users pay to park.

WHC are aware of complaints on social media but this should be put into context as the complaints represent less than 1% of users, leaving over 99% who use the car park have paid without any issues. The car park has increased in use in the last year. With regard to fines being disproportionate, other local car parks have similar fine structures. It should be noted that at £4.50 to park for the day this is still the cheapest in the town and only £1 after 6pm.

So it appears that even the harbour commissioners do not know if the car park is subject to byelaws. Do any of the experts on the forum have a view on this.

Even without the byelaws arguement, there are strong defences, particularly on signage and lighting, which do not comply with the BPA CoP. I've been gathering evidence over the past year, but some of it may be out of date as I believe that some changes may have been made to the signage and lighting in early 2019. As you live locally to Wells, perhaps you can check some time.

The sign below violates section 14.2 of the BPA CoP under misrepresentation of authority, which states ; "You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as 'fine', 'penalty' or 'penalty charge notice'."

https://imgur.com/a/Zou4nyH

Section 18.2 and Appendix B of the CoP specify the entrance signage. There were 2 different types of signs at the entrance, only one of which complied withthe requirements of Appendic B.

Section 18.10 of the CoP deals with changes to the charging regime ; "Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

CEL and the harbour commissioners clearly haven't made regular users of the car park aware of the changes as there are many posts on Parkopedia and Google maps from people caught out by the £1 charge after 6pm, who, like you, parked for a few minutes to get fish'n'chips. The signage is also not consistent throughout the car park - there are 4 or 5 CEL signs and at least 2 left over from when the commissioners were running the car park.

At the time when I visited the car park, there was no bespoke lighting for any of the signs - illumination came solely from adjoining street lighting. This is what the CoP says about lighting in Appendix B ; "Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual."

I don't believe that the signs and lighting are anywhere near good enough to make you aware that you had to pay for parking.

FrankCannon

And please edit your posts where you identify the driver and you've left your name in one of them too. 

kjs_1991

Thank you for this information Frank Cannon. It is really useful. Do you advise I write to them again and state that signage is not appropriately lit. 

Also can you let me know which post you are referring to where I identify as the driver and display my name? I cannot seem to see it. 

Thanks again

kjs_1991

I have found the one with my name and edited that