CEL PCN

TRNC

Ok sure. I won't reupload small changes like those but will edit for the final version. 

nosferatu1001

If you state someone is THE occupant of the car, it means there was only a single occupant. Obviously, that identifies the driver

1505grandad

"Ok thank you. Sorry probably me being dim but I can't see what is wrong with the first part you quote and the bold "as the keeper"?"

I only highlighted "as the keeper" to highlight the fact you are appealing as "keeper" not "driver".

But you then continue by saying "The occupant" (which must mean "the driver"). In the same sentence you continue that "they (the occupant - (driver)) received the NTK. So the occupant (driver) and Keeper are the same.

Umkomaas

The NtK is PoFA compliant so there's little point in splitting hairs in the appeal on keeper/driver. The keeper can be held liable. 

But, if it bulks out the appeal to make it more difficult (volume-wise) for CEL to deal with (hopefully causing them not to contest the appeal), then no harm done. You can't lose the appeal just by getting that point wrong, there are the other points that have potential to win it for you. You only need to win on one point to get it cancelled, the PPC must win on every one of them for POPLA to find against you. 

TRNC

Thank you 1505grandad - hopefully my alteration on the previous page sorts that issue, there is no mention of the occupant receiving the NtK.

 Umkomaas said:

The NtK is PoFA compliant so there's little point in splitting hairs in the appeal on keeper/driver. The keeper can be held liable. 

But, if it bulks out the appeal to make it more difficult (volume-wise) for CEL to deal with (hopefully causing them not to contest the appeal), then no harm done. You can't lose the appeal just by getting that point wrong, there are the other points that have potential to win it for you. You only need to win on one point to get it cancelled, the PPC must win on every one of them for POPLA to find against you. 

thanks, I will keep it in as it is a nice example of how the signs weren't "up to scratch" as there was simply no reason other than that not to pay as they would have been immediately reimbursed.

Interested to get any other thoughts on the appeal - other than commas after I which I will change (just avoiding uploading lots and lots of different versions). 

I notice bulking out volume-wise seems to be a positive but I removed many points and headings, hopefully not to my disadvantage.  I am considering adding those points back it.

Edit: Just found this fantastic example which has 9/10 headings which was successful and very well written - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195922/pcn-help-please/p1 

TRNC

Afternoon! I managed to visit site today and take pictures of the car park and signs, the appeal I intend on submitting is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R3nG3C35_uN24ljzz5O7e1Mg8a-h0BNvdcIAVJBV2v4/edit?usp=sharing

I would appreciate your thoughts and feedback - please note I have re-added some points and there are more headings as after looking at other recent appeals with a similar number I decided they're relevant and add value although I appreciated comments on that part that is the decision I have come to. 

Coupon-mad

I can't see the point of #3 (assuming CEL used their NTK that has the POFA words on the back) nor #5, 6 or 7 which never win at POPLA, not their remit.

Remove this useless intro that someone wrote once and everyone pointlessly copies.  No-one at POPLA cares about the dates of appeal!

I received a letter dated 13/01/2021 acting as a notice to the registered keeper in the form of a ‘Parking Charging Notice’. My appeal to the Operator – Civil Enforcement Ltd. (CEL) – was submitted on 16/01/2021 and received a letter stating I had been unsuccessful in my appeal on 27/01/2021.

And figure 6 and figure 8 worry me. 

Certainly don't show fig 6, you are repeating their clear sign close up - DON'T!

Fig 8 looks like a fairly clear entrance instruction sign to me...I would not show that.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

I can't see the point of #3 (assuming CEL used their NTK that has the POFA words on the back) nor #5, 6 or 7 which never win at POPLA, not their remit.

Remove this useless intro that someone wrote once and everyone pointlessly copies.  No-one at POPLA cares about the dates of appeal!

I received a letter dated 13/01/2021 acting as a notice to the registered keeper in the form of a ‘Parking Charging Notice’. My appeal to the Operator – Civil Enforcement Ltd. (CEL) – was submitted on 16/01/2021 and received a letter stating I had been unsuccessful in my appeal on 27/01/2021.

And figure 6 and figure 8 worry me. 

Certainly don't show fig 6, you are repeating their clear sign close up - DON'T!

Fig 8 looks like a fairly clear entrance instruction sign to me...I would not show that.

Thank you, I have removed point #3. Figure 6 and 8 removed, I wanted to show the outdated picture they provided but obviously they basically went up really close to the sign - those exact signs aren't even there they have changed them totally so I have left the text in to say that. Entrance sign was missing certain aspects which was my thinking there but I have removed that. 

In regards to points 5, 6 and 7 - will these not be considered at all then? I see them in many winning examples some really recent and some for CEL. If its the case of they just rarely win the appeal I may keep them in as its more points that CEL must address. 

Coupon-mad

In regards to points 5, 6 and 7 - will these not be considered at all then?

Nope. No chance, no point with them.

 I think it takes the Assessor's focus away from good points, because they'll think ''oh, here's that tired old template again''.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

In regards to points 5, 6 and 7 - will these not be considered at all then?

Nope. No chance, no point with them.

 I think it takes the Assessor's focus away from good points, because they'll think ''oh, here's that tired old template again''.

Fair enough, I have removed those now. Do you think it is good to go now?