Update: CEL PCN, we won at POPLA! Thank you everyone!

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

Get rid of this horrific intro.  It demonstrates a truly horrible annihilation of the English language that every other newbie decided to copy - arrgghh!:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 09/03/2021 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Civil Enforcement Limited – was submitted and acknowledged on 12/03/2021 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 15/03/2021. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and

There is no point talking about no keeper liability if the PCN was a POFA one - was it?  If so, then dump that point.

The section about the BPA CoP is over a year out of date. There are not two grace periods adding up to 20 minutes.

Signage is a major point and it's good to see you went to town over that, with photo evidence.  But your mention size '60 font'?  That's large, not half an inch!

I didn't see you point out that none of the signs have the parking charge anywhere (or if it is, the £sum is not readable).  

And this should be point #1 on its own:

Signage in the car park is what purports to form a contract with a motorist, yet the company name in bold on the sign (‘www.starpark.co.uk’), which is different to the name Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Thanks a lot for the advice!

Here is my draft version 2 after adapting your points:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1csbOxhA9R3CcLhj4Y2Fky9_kZeS0ltxryzE1D_kExes/edit?usp=sharing

• I wrote a new introduction and got rid of the copied one. 

• Since the PCN was a POFA one, I dumped the original point about: The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

• I updated all BPA CoP according to the newest version -  version 8, Jan 2020.

• Since the new code about the grace period is: "The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes". The car was at the parking site for 17 mins, so maybe I should just drop the point about the grace period? What do you think? Or maybe there is another angle to argue this?

• I corrected the font to: The letters seem to be no larger than a font of 10 point size (0.14 inch) ....

• I added "none of the signs has the parking charge anywhere (or if it is, the £sum is not readable)." to point #2 now.

• I added a new point #1: Signage in the car park is what purports to form a contract with a motorist, yet the company name in bold on the sign (‘www.starpark.co.uk’), which is different to the name Civil Enforcement Ltd. I also quoted some BPA code. Could you kindly help me to have a look at the wording there?

Coupon-mad

• Since the PCN was a POFA one, I dumped the original point about: No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

What?  Surely not!

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

• Since the PCN was a POFA one, I dumped the original point about: No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

What?  Surely not!

Sorry I made a mistake when copy and paste. I meant I dropped this point: "The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge". Since I feel the wording of this point relies a lot on "no keeper's liability ". I will also edit my original comment.

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

• Since the PCN was a POFA one, I dumped the original point about: No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

What?  Surely not!

What about the grace period point? Am I right to drop it (since the new BPA CoP removed the two grace period wording)? Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes - drop it - if the car was there 17 or 18 minutes. 

Why was the car there, why drive into a private car park at all (I never would for any short errand  - you can park on street).

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - drop it - if the car was there 17 or 18 minutes. 

Why was the car there, why drive into a private car park at all (I never would for any short errand  - you can park on street).

Thank you for the advice. 

The car was there because the driver didn't see the entrance sign due to its awkward position (I have also made this point in the appeal). I guess it's a lesson learnt.

Do you think there are other points I could add to the appeal? Do you think the draft is good to send?

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - drop it - if the car was there 17 or 18 minutes. 

Why was the car there, why drive into a private car park at all (I never would for any short errand  - you can park on street).

I just edited my point #1 again. Since I didn't follow any of the existing templates for this point, could you kindly help me have a look? Thanks!

1.  Signage in the car park is what purports to form a contract with a motorist, yet the company name in bold on the sign (‘www.starpark.co.uk’), which is different to the name Civil Enforcement Ltd.
   

There was no contract nor agreement between the operator, Civil Enforcement Limited, and the motorist on the 'parking charge' at all.

BPA Code of Practice (page 4, version 8 - Janurary 2020) defines a Parking Contract as:

“Parking contract: The agreement between the driver and the owner or operator of a car park on private land. The contract is offered by the signage and accepted when the motorist remains on site. “

BPA Code of Practice (section 19.2, version 8 - Janurary 2020) states:

“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

Thus, entrance signage in the car park is what purports to form a contract between the motorist and the operator of a car park. In this case, Civil Enforcement Ltd claims to be the operator of the car park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road. However, Figure 1 clearly shows that even in the close-up photo sent by the operator themselves, the name Civil Enforcement Ltd cannot be found. In Figure 1 below, the company name in bold on the sign (‘www.starpark.co.uk’), which is different to the claimant’s name - Civil Enforcement Ltd. 

Following the link ‘www.starpark.co.uk’, a figure shows up. Enter the shown registration number at the bottom of the figure (06651610) at Company House website, this registration number is linked to a dissolved company called STAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD. The link can be found here. 

The company name CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD is linked to a different registration number - 05645677 - at Company House. The link can be found here. 

The advertised operator  ‘www.starpark.co.uk’ not only has a different name to Civil Enforcement Ltd, but it is also dissolved. I, therefore, put Civil Enforcement Ltd to strict proof as to who is the actual operator of this car park, and what is their relationship with ‘www.starpark.co.uk’. 

BPA Code of Practice (section 19.10, version 8 - Janurary 2020) states:

“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. “

If the alleged operator is now Civil Enforcement Ltd instead of ‘www.starpark.co.uk’, this would surely count as a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist, and thus the operator should provide additional signage at the entrance and throughout the site to make it clear. Figure 1 and Figure 3 below clearly shows no signage is provided to clarify who the actual operator of the car park is.

So it cannot be assumed that any contract nor agreement exists on the 'parking charge' at all.

Figure 1: 237-259 Greenwich High Road - car park sign used by the operator Civil Enforcement Ltd as photographic evidence

Figure 3: 237-259 Greenwich High Road - car park sign

SayNoToPCN

Reword that title.
The sign supposedly offering a contract (which is denied) is in the name of the company "Starpark" (a website is not a company name) , which is a different entity to the Operator CEL Ltd. The Operator is a stranger to any alleged contract with Starpark

If they refute this by saying a trading name then whoops, the sign does not disclose that - does it?

creek48

SayNoToPCN said:

Reword that title.
The sign supposedly offering a contract (which is denied) is in the name of the company "Starpark" (a website is not a company name) , which is a different entity to the Operator CEL Ltd. The Operator is a stranger to any alleged contract with Starpark

If they refute this by saying a trading name then whoops, the sign does not disclose that - does it?

Thank you a lot for the advice. I have just reflected your suggested title in my draft appeal (linked at the top in the original post). What do you think about the wording for this point's main body? I appreciate it if you could also kindly have a look at my other points? I think I need to submit this soon. Thank you. 

I link my draft here as well:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1csbOxhA9R3CcLhj4Y2Fky9_kZeS0ltxryzE1D_kExes/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Companies House.

I know you went to town on the signage but I struggled to find where you say something like:

the signs don't have the parking charge of £100 on them.  Alternatively, if (and I am guessing) the £100 is hidden in the minuscule t&cs wording, among the GDPR data info, then it is simply impossible to pick out - see photos - POPLA Assessor, please ask yourself, where is the £100 contractual sum and terms?  At no point can a driver learn about that risk, the terms, the breaches that cause a penalty to arise or what that sum might be.