CEL PCN

Coupon-mad

It is untrue that the registered keeper has identified themselves as the driver on the day in question. Finally, no evidence was provided by CEL of a contract to operate in this car park.

Hmmm but it will be true, if you use the word 're-visit' above.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

It is untrue that the registered keeper has identified themselves as the driver on the day in question. Finally, no evidence was provided by CEL of a contract to operate in this car park.

Hmmm but it will be true, if you use the word 're-visit' above.

Thanks for the feedback, although I disagree. You can easily re-visit as a passenger, but I can will change to avoid confusion. Do you have any other thoughts on the response? 

D_P_Dance

You can also revisit on foot, by public transport or even on horseback. 

TRNC

TRNC said:

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, no evidence was provided by CEL of a contract to operate in this car park.

Reading the POPLA decisions thread there is a recent one that has been won against CEL, it noted the response from CEL was dated during a time that they should not have had sight of the appeal (during the adjournment period). I then opened mine to realise that this has been the case with my appeal (I actual raised a complaint already about this but it was brushed off). I would like to raise this in my response as it seems to have worked in their appeal! But I am constrained with my characters and was wondering if anyone had an opinion on what I could remove? Maybe Point 10? 

Coupon-mad

Don't put that in your appeal, send a separate complaint to POPLA about being fobbed off but the evidence shows you were right, and ask what are POPLA playing at letting PPCs have months to work on their side?  How is this fair to a consumer?

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

Don't put that in your appeal, send a separate complaint to POPLA about being fobbed off but the evidence shows you were right, and ask what are POPLA playing at letting PPCs have months to work on their side?  How is this fair to a consumer?

Ok, I won't add to the appeal. I have already complained about it and they replied totally missing the point and at the end of the email basically said "this matter is now closed and we will not reply to any follow up emails", I called and asked to speak to the person in the complaints team but apparently they don't take calls - I explained the situation and they suggested the only thing I could do is reply to the email which I have done, await a response but will follow up soon. 

Other than that, is there anything you would add/remove from the appeal? If it is good to go I will send. Seeing as CEL haven't provided any written authorisation from the landowner I think it looks positive. 

Coupon-mad

 Seeing as CEL haven't provided any written authorisation from the landowner I think it looks positive. 

If that is true, put that first because I didn't even notice that in your bullet points.  It's your winner, as long as your appeal asked for landowner authority.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

 Seeing as CEL haven't provided any written authorisation from the landowner I think it looks positive. 

If that is true, put that first because I didn't even notice that in your bullet points.  It's your winner, as long as your appeal asked for landowner authority.

This is true, I have checked their appeals response a few times and found nothing of the sort. I have now added this at the start of my appeal: No written authorisation of the landowner to operate in this car park has been provided (a requirement in the BPA CoP Section 7.1) as requested in my appeal. 

EDIT: Just wanted to check whether a brief sentence like that is enough to drive home the point? It is really constraining with the character limit but I can remove other sections if there is more to add here

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the line you need to win it.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's the line you need to win it.

Thanks. Will submit that, much appreciated.