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

FrankCannon

Have CEL replied to your SAR yet ?

kjs_1991

Yes they have sent me some of the documents requested e.g. images of the vehicle, times, copies of previous correspondence but they refused to send me images of the sings or any improvements that have been made and instead said that "As you have not provided a substantive response as to why you dispute the PCN, this is not a relevant document" 

nosferatu1001

Theyre correct. Signs are NOT personal data. 

FrankCannon

I'm confused. Can you confirm that the letter you received from CEL requesting £182 was headed Letter Before Action or similar. If that is the case, then my understanding is that CEL should be releasing their evidence to you, including images of signs, as part of the pre-court action protocols, but I am fairly new to this forum. Perhaps one of the forum experts can confirm. I don't see why they would not do this as they sent me a load of images at the PoPLA stage, and you are well past that.

Have you checked yet that the original PCN complies with PoFA 2012. If not, then that would be a valid response with which to dispute the PCN.

kjs_1991

Yes the initial letter I received from CEL was titles Letter before action. I then requested a SAR a sent a letter to them. They responded by sending some of the documents requested. Documents such as information about signage was not send and they said "As you have not provided a substantive response as to why you dispute the PCN, this is not a relevant document". 
Therefore should I respond stating that I dispute the claim based on the fact that signage and lighting is not clear? 

Coupon-mad

my understanding is that CEL should be releasing their evidence to you, including images of signs, as part of the pre-court action protocols, but I am fairly new to this forum. Perhaps one of the forum experts can confirm. 

Yes this is correct.  All we said was, this is not something you get from a SAR (personal data only).

The pre-action protocol is a different thing and yes the OP should use that and ask for the signs and state the alleged sum is disputed due to unclear signs.

And (if this was a non POFA NTK and the driver was never admitted) the fact CEL do not use the POFA and that this is 'not relevant land' due to Harbour Byelaws, so a keeper cannot be liable.

Deepod

I have written to CEL stating the land is governed by byelaws and is under statutory control and they have replied that it is not covered by bye-laws relating to parking.   They say it is relevant land. and can be managed under POFA Letter dated 15th February. So my charge of £182 still stands.  Any advice??

nosferatu1001

Itis under statutuory control ans so is not relevant land. Theyre wrong. Furnish them with a copy showing this.
Did you dispute stating that signs are unclear, so you need a copy of the signs at the time of the alleged issue?
What about disputing that their NTK fails to meet POFA ANYWAY? Do you know how it doesnt?

Deepod

The Government byelaws for the harbour    says"9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order the Commissioners may make byelaws for all or any of the following purposes —" and this covers the car parking.  So no byelaws in force and is relevant land.  On another thread on this site - see below -  the harbourmaster confirmed to someone that there were no byelaws covering parking.

PCN Port of Wells Civil Enforcement Ltd 

That was my main defence.

nosferatu1001

Youve already been told not to post on others threads. Stop it.