Wells-next-the-Sea harbour car park PCN from CEL

Lulu58

Good afternoon all

My husband has received the attached PCN from CEL.

I've done a lot of research, read the NEWBIE thread along with several others about the Wells harbour car park.  I've also read through POFA 2012 and compared my husband's PCN to the requirements outlined in Schedule 4, paragraph (9) 1 and 2. 

I was going to send the template text in blue from the NEWBIE post (more on that later!).  However, I then read this post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6234451/pcn-at-port-of-wells-car-park/p1
I thought maybe BrownTrout's template text was the way to go because although the PCN was sent to my husband as the registered keeper it does not mention the word 'keeper'.  That said, the text on our PCN is different to that shown in the above thread.

I've read about keeper liaibility but I'm still not clear in my mind whether my husband's PCN is POFA or non POFA.  Can anyone help me with this?

Back to the text in blue from the NEWBIE post - out of interest, why is this the recommended route as opposed to responding (without admitting liability, driver name etc):
1. The PCN is outside of the relevant period of 14 days stated in POFA Schedule 4, paragraph (9) 4 and 5 
2. The Port of Wells is not relevant land as per POFA Schedule 4, paragraph (1) and (3)
3.  If the Port of Wells is not relevant land then CEL have acted unlawfully in obtaining personal data from the DVLA

Perhaps in responding this way in the first instance we are unwittingly admitting liability?

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

The template is designed to cover all cases, most of which involve POFA PCNs.  Hence it is generic.

but in your case you have a non POFA PCN and have done enough reading to get it, so use Brown Trout’s version.

3.  If the Port of Wells is not relevant land then CEL have acted unlawfully in obtaining personal data from the DVLA.

No they haven’t. They can.

Coupon-mad

And even when CEL give up, because this one is easy, please come back in August to this forum and keep checking till you find us talking about the all-important final Government Public Consultation because you will be an ideal member of the public to respond! 

They need real people to help them shape and decide the level of parking charges and they’ve already stated that the lower level will be £50 (£25) not £100. Great!  

But the PPCs will also be responding to the Consultation so we need real members of the public to balance that and share your own views about ludicrously £100 charges for NO SERVICE.

Lulu58

Coupon-mad said:

The template is designed to cover all cases, most of which involve POFA PCNs.  Hence it is generic.

but in your case you have a non POFA PCN and have done enough reading to get it, so use Brown Trout’s version.

3.  If the Port of Wells is not relevant land then CEL have acted unlawfully in obtaining personal data from the DVLA.

No they haven’t. They can.

Thanks, Coupon-mad. It's bugging me that I can't tell the difference!  I have tried to find a POFA PCN from CEL already but will search again once I've sent off the email.

I wasn't sure of my ground on point 3 but thought I might mention it had I gone down that route 

Coupon-mad

Look at 9(2)f of Schedule 4. Not in your PCN, is it?

Lulu58

Coupon-mad said:

And even when CEL give up, because this one is easy, please come back in August to this forum and keep checking till you find us talking about the all-important final Government Public Consultation because you will be an ideal member of the public to respond! 

They need real people to help them shape and decide the level of parking charges and they’ve already stated that the lower level will be £50 (£25) not £100. Great!  

But the PPCs will also be responding to the Consultation so we need real members of the public to balance that and share your own views about ludicrously £100 charges for NO SERVICE.

I'd read about the Consultation on another thread and have noted the links so I can put my two-penneth in. 

£100 is completely disproportionate.  That said, I also think £50 is steep.  

Lulu58

Coupon-mad said:

Look at 9(2)f of Schedule 4. Not in your PCN, is it?

Thanks, Coupon-mad.  I think I'm getting a bit bogged down with the wording after reading so much stuff.  I'll re-read it tomorrow with a fresh pair of eyes.

Le_Kirk

It can be confusing reading the POFA because they do seem to dodge about from section this paragraph that but in this case all you need to do is download the POFA, have it open and, in another tab your PCN and go through both to see what is missing from the PCN.  You might print your PCN and relevant sections of the POFA and lay them side-by-side.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Coupon-mad

Lulu58 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And even when CEL give up, because this one is easy, please come back in August to this forum and keep checking till you find us talking about the all-important final Government Public Consultation because you will be an ideal member of the public to respond! 

They need real people to help them shape and decide the level of parking charges and they’ve already stated that the lower level will be £50 (£25) not £100. Great!  

But the PPCs will also be responding to the Consultation so we need real members of the public to balance that and share your own views about ludicrously £100 charges for NO SERVICE.

I'd read about the Consultation on another thread and have noted the links so I can put my two-penneth in. 

£100 is completely disproportionate.  That said, I also think £50 is steep.  

I agree and that’s a good response to say to Government to support their proposals. There needs to be a deterrent and it’s more than enough.

£50 is steep to most people and is certainly a deterrent, as long as the signs are in larger lettering so the repercussion for breach of terms are prominent and known to drivers: ‘legible and bound to be seen’.  

The CRA 2015 requires that terms are prominent, especially onerous terms.

The problem until now has been the penalty has been too big and the signs too small.  Swap that around and you have a credible deterrent model, right there. 

Redx

CEL have used reasonable cause to access RK DVLA data , they all do , they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and then one month to inform the keeper

No POFA , so no keeper liability , so they hope that the knee jerk reaction to the NTK PCN is to inadvertently tell them who was driving , they will assume that the keeper was also the driver Nd proceed on that basis

There is no legal requirement to name the driver for a private PCN , an invoice !! Especially when POFA does not apply , for any reason , be it timescales , wording , or non relevant land

Lulu58

I wanted to share some good news!

We appealed using BrownTrout's non POFA text and we have just heard that the CEL PCN has been cancelled. 

A big thank you to Coupon-mad, Le-Kirk and Redx for responding to my thread, but also everyone who contributed to the incredibly helpful NEWBIE thread and several other MSE parking threads I used during my research.