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

creek48

So here are CEL's response:













Point 27 is so wrong, the keeper never admitted to anything....

creek48

Only 2000 characters allowed for this long responses seems impossible.

KeithP

creek48 said:

Only 2000 characters allowed for this long responses seems impossible.

That's right. Concise bullet point responses needed.

Point out everything they have got wrong.

Point out everything in your appeal that they haven't challenged - thus indicating their agreement with your point.


And keep your eye on the time - less than seven days to respond.

Coupon-mad

#12 says ''we are relying on the POFA and holding him liable as keeper''.

#27 says ''we are not relying on the POFA''.

the terms are so faded and tiny and not even in bold, on that sign, that CEL have had to put a red square around it but there is nothing readable in that red square about any contract agreeing to pay £100.

Umkomaas

Para 27 is wholly incorrect. The BPA paras referenced in it say nothing like CEL assert (check it out). With an ANPR camera capture of the car entering and leaving, the PPC have just 15 days from the date of the parking event to apply to the DVLA for registered keeper data and for the NtK to be 'given' (assumed to be two working days following the date of issue). 

The landowner 'agreement' is split into two sections - there is no evidence (and that is what POPLA work on - evidence) that the sections belong to each other. Casting this further into doubt is the fact that while the 'agreement' commenced in March 2016, the landowner signature is dated February 2019, almost 3 years later. The agreement 'contents' (between the header and footer) have been interposed by CEL - they could formulate anything they wanted, but there is absolutely no evidence that that has been agreed by the landowner!

EDIT TO ADD - furthermore, the 'signature' appears to be a computer generated one, not an actual signature. Check out the letter 'a' in the first name and surname. If you've got time to trog through various fonts in your word processor software, you might be able discover which one has been used. 

You're going to have to condense the above into bullets in order to work within the 2,000 characters limit. 

creek48

Umkomaas said:

Para 27 is wholly incorrect. The BPA paras referenced in it say nothing like CEL assert (check it out). With an ANPR camera capture of the car entering and leaving, the PPC have just 15 days from the date of the parking event to apply to the DVLA for registered keeper data and for the NtK to be 'given' (assumed to be two working days following the date of issue). 

The landowner 'agreement' is split into two sections - there is no evidence (and that is what POPLA work on - evidence) that the sections belong to each other. Casting this further into doubt is the fact that while the 'agreement' commenced in March 2016, the landowner signature is dated February 2019, almost 3 years later. The agreement 'contents' (between the header and footer) have been interposed by CEL - they could formulate anything they wanted, but there is absolutely no evidence that that has been agreed by the landowner!

EDIT TO ADD - furthermore, the 'signature' appears to be a computer generated one, not an actual signature. Check out the letter 'a' in the first name and surname. If you've got time to trog through various fonts in your word processor software, you might be able discover which one has been used. 

You're going to have to condense the above into bullets in order to work within the 2,000 characters limit. 

Thanks a lot for the comments.

• Regarding your comments on CEL's para 27, I have some further question after checking the actual code. The BPA code indeed says: if the operator: Not making use of Keeper Liability provisions

22.7 To give drivers early notice of your claim, you should apply to the DVLA for the keeper details promptly. Usually this would be applying to the DVLA no more than 28 days after the unauthorised parking event. When applying for Keeper Details you must ensure that you adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and requirements. 

22.9 You must post the parking charge notice to the keeper as soon as possible. Your target is to send the parking charge notice to the keeper of the vehicle no more than 14 days after receiving the keeper data from the DVLA.

So CEL's para 27 is not entirely wrong about the 28 and 14 days, but they are wholly incorrect about "the Appellant admitted he was the driver of the vehicle". Thus, I think my main point of attack should be no admission to as to who was driving and no assumption can be drawn? And also the fact that as Coupon-mad pointed out:

#12 says ''we are relying on the POFA and holding him liable as keeper''.

#27 says ''we are not relying on the POFA''.

They are contradicting themselves?

Could you kindly suggest some wording on this point? 

• Regarding your comments on "the 'signature' appears to be a computer-generated one", I indeed found the font they used to generate the signature. 

The font name is called: Daniel. And can be accessed from this link: 

https://www.dafont.com/daniel.font?text=Mark+Vallis

But I guess links and pictures cannot be included in the comments, right? In that case, could you kindly offer some advice on how to attack this computer-generated signature?

Thanks a lot!!

creek48

KeithP said:

creek48 said:

Only 2000 characters allowed for this long responses seems impossible.

That's right. Concise bullet point responses needed.

Point out everything they have got wrong.

Point out everything in your appeal that they haven't challenged - thus indicating their agreement with your point.


And keep your eye on the time - less than seven days to respond.

Thanks a lot for the comments. 

Regarding your point on pointing out what they haven't challenged, I found out that they did not comment on my point about "Vehicle Images non-compliance". In my initial appeal, I pointed out that:

As in Figure 9, the PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). 

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter to the left of the images (but not part of) the images. 

Figure 10 shows Civil Enforcement Ltd’s response to my initial appeal as the keeper. 

Four clearly edited and cropped images are included as alleged photographic evidence. Compared with the two images of the vehicle in the original PCN (see Figure 9), Civil Enforcement Ltd inserted the time and date stamp to the images in Figure 10 with photo editing. In Figure 10, the images have also been cropped to only display the number plate, and it is clear the time and date stamp are also added by photo editing afterwards. How could these images be creditable evidence if anyone can add any date and time stamp to any images afterwards? 

As these are not the original images, Civil Enforcement Ltd does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a as quoted above. I require Civil Enforcement Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-edited" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated. 

So in my comments, shall I say something like:

The operator still failed to produce evidence of the original "un-edited" images containing the required date and time stamp (please refer to my appeal point 4), thus indicating the operator's agreement with my point on "Vehicle Images BPA code non-compliance".

Does this look good to you? Thanks

DW190

Here's a copy of Mark Vallis real signature with joined up writing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkoccu7lke5c0x7/companies_house_document.pdf?dl=0

creek48

DW190 said:

Here's a copy of Mark Vallis real signature with joined up writing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkoccu7lke5c0x7/companies_house_document.pdf?dl=0

Thanks a lot. I did a further digging on Company House, the third document in this link also contains a real signature from Mark Vallis

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00589369/filing-history



The problem is this is the comments stage, so I am not sure how to include these. Do have any suggested wording? Something like:

The 'signature' does not match the handwritten signature of Mark Vallis as listed on companies house.

Would this be good?

DW190

creek48 said:

DW190 said:

Here's a copy of Mark Vallis real signature with joined up writing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkoccu7lke5c0x7/companies_house_document.pdf?dl=0

Thanks a lot. I did a further digging on Company House, the third document in this link also contains a real signature from Mark Vallis

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00589369/filing-history



The problem is this is the comments stage, so I am not sure how to include these. Do have any suggested wording? Something like:

The 'signature' does not match the handwritten signature of Mark Vallis as listed on companies house.

Would this be good?

I would go more on "The confirmation of Authority appears to be computer generated including the signature of Mark Vallis which is in the Daniel font.  His real signature appears on several public documents.