CEL PCN

TRNC

No I don't. Still, not convinced it's fair they've had this additional time.

KeithP

TRNC said:

No I don't. Still, not convinced it's fair they've had this additional time.

What additional time?
Are you assuming that CEL saw your appeal soon after you filed it?

Coupon-mad

They were not sent the appeals. POPLA were just paused and did nothing.

TRNC

Ah ok that makes sense! Thanks 

TRNC

So I asked the question and just received this:

I can confirm the operator will have been able to view your appeal. However, all operators were told not to provide any evidence, so the operator may not have viewed your appeal during this time.

I find this very strange and unfair. 

Coupon-mad

Yes - and POPLA don't care.

They are being removed shortly anyway, replaced by a properly independent service provided by Government but funded by the industry:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

Redx

TRNC said:

So I asked the question and just received this:

I can confirm the operator will have been able to view your appeal. However, all operators were told not to provide any evidence, so the operator may not have viewed your appeal during this time.

I find this very strange and unfair. 

Which is why the MP s , government and Mhclg / bsi are changing it by 2022

TRNC

Thought I'd share as previously it was thought the operator couldn't see my appeal. 

Glad they will be replaced.

TRNC

CEL have now submitted their response, attached below, any thoughts would be appreciated. I will take a look over the weekend for my comments. I have redacted any personal info:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wl5i6wqucg7h5m6/9253230507_redacted.pdf?dl=0 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yxlb01prkg1xypp/Beavis Supreme Court Judgment (Summary).pdf?dl=0

Edit: first thought are the pictures they uploaded are from 2019 and the signage has changed since then even so clearly they aren't fit as evidence. I forgot to upload their pictures but will do when I am back home.

TRNC

My response to CELs response below. It was really difficult to keep it to 2,000 characters so it is very concise! Welcome all responses and comments:

Points 3, 4, 6 & 14: Pictures provided were taken in 2019 almost two years prior to the incident, therefore it cannot be used as an accurate representation of the site as it was in January 2021. The signage location is no longer the same nor are the signs the same. There was no clear signage or road markings differentiating between the council owned car park and this private car park.  Point 7: This standalone quote has no reference from where it was taken from or if it was in fact a statement from the BPA – a search of the BPA CoP found no evidence of this quote. Point 8: This is untrue, the onus is on CEL to provide adequate signage which they have failed to do. Point 10: Parking Eye v Beavis has no relevance to my case; this appears to be a “copy and paste” response. Point 15: This report is totally unreliable as a) it could be a written document produced by anyone at CEL b) there is nothing to evidence that it is the record from that site/that day and c) it is not signed off as a true copy from the machine, nor a screenshot of data. Point 16: I do not mention the height of the signage in my appeal. Point 17: The first statement from CEL is simply their opinion. In my appeal I gave examples of why the text size is not appropriate according to the BPA code of practise and the pictures of the current signage (which I provided) shows this. I also refute the final comment from CEL: it was only when visiting the car park (to collect evidence) that I was aware of signage on site, it is pure speculation to assume otherwise. Point 18: BPA CoP paragraph 18.3 does not exist in the latest version, there are no words to that effect in the latest version. Therefore, this is not fit for purpose as evidence. Point 19: It is untrue that the registered keeper has identified themselves as the driver on the day in question. Finally, and possibly most importantly, no written authorisation of the landowner to operate in this car park was provided by CEL (Section 7.1 BPA CoP).