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

creek48

Hi everyone, thanks again for all of your kind help and comments. I have now put together the first draft of my comments. Could you kindly provide some advice?

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

 

In #12, the terms are faded and tiny and not even in bold; on that sign, that operator CEL has had to put a red square around it, but there is nothing readable in that red square about any contract agreeing to pay £100.

The #27 is wholly incorrect. There is no admissions regarding who was driving in all correspondence from the keeper, and no assumptions can be drawn. The operator says in #12, "we are relying on the POFA and holding him liable as keeper", but then in #27 says, "we are not relying on the POFA". Thus, the operator is self-contradicting.

 

The pictures produced by the operator were taken in 2019 and are not an accurate representation of signage as current. The images provided in my appeal were taken during further research (on foot) in March 2021 and are evidence of visual obstacles caused by ongoing construction, which provides clear evidence of the lack of legible signage.

Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) has not provided a valid landowner contract in #22. The alleged Confirmation of Authority is split into two sections - there is no evidence that the sections belong to each other. Casting this further into doubt is 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 no evidence that the landowner has agreed that. Also, the 'signature' of Mark Vallis is a computer-generated one in the font Daniel Regular, not an actual signature. The letter 'a' in the first name and surname are identical. His authentic signature appears on several public documents at Companies House.

Coupon-mad

2025 characters is too many and I'd move the first point to be last as it's too complicated for POPLA Assessors.  You want them to read the easy point first.

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

2025 characters is too many and I'd move the first point to be last as it's too complicated for POPLA Assessors.  You want them to read the easy point first.

Thanks a lot for your advice! I have edited it a bit and moved the first point. According to Word, the current version had 1988 characters (with space). I actually have more points that I want to add but I am out of space....

Do you think the rebuttal on their point 16 and 17 is important? As I have used start pack limited being a dissolved company as my first appeal point.

Coupon-mad

Star Park, you mean?  POPLA won't understand any of the stuff about the landowner contract nor stuff about Star Park!  Your other points are better but POPLA are pretty rubbish so don't worry if you lose.

creek48

Coupon-mad said:

Star Park, you mean?  POPLA won't understand any of the stuff about the landowner contract nor stuff about Star Park!  Your other points are better but POPLA are pretty rubbish so don't worry if you lose.

Yes, sorry I meant Star Park Limited. Thanks again for your kind comments. So you would say the current version is good to send?

Castle

The www.starpark.co.uk website belonged to the now dissolved Star Park Management Ltd (Company Number 06651610) not Star Park Ltd (which has never existed according to Companies House, despite what CEL has written in their response).

Coupon-mad

Good point to include!

creek48

Thanks to everyone who offered advice. I have submitted the comments and will update you when I get the results. Thanks again!

creek48

I won the POPLA appeal! Thank you all for your help.

Le_Kirk

Nice one!